Oppose because it is too small. I have another picture of a leafy seadragon that's higher resolution, but not good enough for a FP. I don't agree with the above that it needs to "stand out" more. Blending in is half the point of the animal. -- Ram-Man13:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral{Oppose}} - nice enough pic, but rather low resolution, only 344 KB, with consequent jpeg compression faults; also top of bridge cut off - MPF 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC) -- changed to neutral as low res no longer applies - MPF18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Anrie - I thought it the close up was very well done - very sharp with brilliant colours. 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Lycaon05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - rather blurred apart from beak and eye; also lacking location, etc., information (flickr photo, so unlikely to be obtainable) - MPF22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if it's small sized it's a very good picture. DoF is small indeed, but it's at F32, so it could hardly be bigger. --Atoma10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image is a 100% crop and not a downscaled version of a larger photo. The fly head has a diameter of only 2.5 mm (0.1 inch). -- aka11:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I don't like the purple background and the picture looks oversaturated. Not enough mitigating reasons for me :) Alvesgaspar14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low res, colors are not that good (but it's probably quite hard to get good exposure with the bright snow and the rather dark truck) and bad composition (too much space on the left and not enough on the right) -- Gorgo18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not a species of Taraxacum; note absence of stalk between seed and pappus. Possibly Crepis or Sonchus; more pics needed to identify it. - MPF11:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the information. As for taking more pics, we will have to wait a couple of weeks before I return to the same spot. In the meantime, I'll correct the caption. Alvesgaspar13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, I don't like it, looks like an illustration of the 70's. A lot more of sophistication is needed in my opinion. Alvesgaspar10:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "retro" look is fine with me and I must disagree with Alvesgaspar on the lack of "sophistication". The sophiè clearly is there and so what if it is simple : the illustration serving its purpose. --Diligent11:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Low noise but underexposure really hurts much needed contrast/apparent sharpness. An otherwise great picture! -- Ram-Man12:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this picture, but the informations about this creature are missing. And these are very important for me. --Karelj19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this picture a lot and would vote for it but Fir0002 has recently decided to upload only low resolution copies of his images, for commercial reasons, I believe. It's a shame, but at this resolution this image and other recent Fir0002 pictures are below the minimum size requirement (2000x1000) for FP status. --MichaelMaggs20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently? I've never uploaded above 1600x1200 (except for panoramas)! I've recently decided that some images will be posted at 1280x960! --Fir0002www08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like this picture a lot and its subject isn't clear at all. I wouldn't have guessed it was a fire if I haven't been told. So, for me there are no mitingating reasons for the small size. Alvesgaspar21:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info A Seagull just landed in Nal Sarovar... I'm glad to announce a rare FP candidate from India, from the Nal Sarovar Sanctuary for migratory birds. I hope it does well.
Oppose purple fringing, lack of details caused by post processing and insufficient focus, and unfortunate file name. Lycaon11:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the gull is a bit out of focus; moreover I can see JPEG compression artifacts next to the gull. Plus a detail: it's better not to use non-ascii characters in the filename, it can cause compatibility problems. Alessio Damato12:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support When evaluated at approximately 11"x14" @ 100dpi at a 2 foot viewing distance it looks great. The artifacts and unsharpness listed above are only visible at extreme magnifications. I have to question the assertion that this image is overexposed. Check the histogram: the highlights are not clipping. The exposure is very good given the lighting conditions. You would need to shoot this in film or perhaps a FujiFilm S5 to get the kind of highlight dynamic range that is being complained about. We probably have too many black-gull featured pictures, such as this, this, and this but this is also pretty nice. Since it is not in flight (like the other FPs) it does add some educational value in addition to its artistic value. -- Ram-Man17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment overexposure is not visible on histogram because image was darkened, but it can be clearly seen on even 100% magnification. About your other comments - yes, downsized and seen from 2 feet it could be fine (but it isn't, because of overexposure), but it's FP, not "if we watch the image from proper distance, blurred, squinting at it etc. FP images should be outstanding from the rest, not "not worse than some other". --Leafnode20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darkened or not, there is pixel information above the threshold for the parts of the image that appear to be overexposed. The histogram is not clipped at those highlights. At 100% magnification the image would be 20"x30" at the 100dpi that I view at, which is of overly large size. Based on your comment, I looked at it at 100% and STILL think it looks pretty good at the same viewing distance. I think this image is good on its own, which is why I support it despite having others of the same animal (That was intended as a neutral comment). Let me clarify: the highlights could clearly benefit from more dynamic range or perhaps better in-camera contrast control, but determining proper exposure is much more complicated. Would exposing less result in more noise or a background that was too dark? I'm not denying the loss of detail in the highlights only that I don't think the image would be improved by lowering the exposure. -- Ram-Man20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easy to determine whether it's overexposed or not: using any software select color range with zero tolerance using brightest pixels from gull's wing or stomach - it's not possible, that so many pixels would have identical color without being overexposed. Determining proper exposure is much more complicated - of course, but I'm not saying that some virtual photo would be good - I'm saying what's wrong with this picture. And to me this picture has technical flaws (visible from distance or using magnifying glass), which FP shouldn't have. For me - EOT. --Leafnode06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in full size it's clearly visible that the picture got manipulatet... maybe you should blur the aera round the leave end a litte... --Jeses11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's really nice, except for the same-color foliage in the background, which blends with the in-focus foliage.--Ragesoss02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over exposed stamens and other parts - loss of detail. Also cutout background has resulted in fine details (that should be visible at this res) missing like little spiky hairs from those angular corners of the cacti --Tony Wills11:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I totally like it, the background goes well with the main composition. I'd totally support a newer version without the overexposed parts. Good work. --Atoma20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this picture is not high enough quality for a featured picture, then our standards are much higher than is shown by previous featured pictures. Take beautiful flower pictures like this and this for example. In this image the highlights are not clipped and any less exposure would be too dark. If anything more dynamic range would be helpful, but I think it is excellent and looks fine at relatively large magnification of 11"x16" @ 100dpi and a 18" viewing distance. I don't know what kind of camera was used to take this picture, but I don't think we require the dynamic range or resolution of film to get a featured picture. -- Ram-Man19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need to strip out the artificial background before examining the histogram to see what is clipped. But clearly there is a loss of detail, for instance compare the very nice detail on the lower petals to the white featureless areas on some of the upper petals and stem of the flower. I expect photos of stationary objects, taken under controlled conditions to be of very high quality :-) --Tony Wills22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at the picture again, and there are three or four discrete steps of tonal detail in the histogram in the blown-out white petal that would be considered "featureless". Not much, for sure, and there is a decent chunk of it that was a single tone, but it was definitely not clipped around the highlights. Notice in my comment that I was talking only about clipping, which did not occur, as there is brighter detail elsewhere in the image. The background was irrelevent as I was looking directly at the highlight threshold. Your assertion that images under controlled situations should be judged more strictly is interesting and I certainly respect that opinion, but I don't think it's a serious problem in this image. That's why we all give our own opinions. Perhaps I should be more strict. -- Ram-Man00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI thank you all for the all the many words, appreciative or not. Anyway the picture has stirred a little interest and discussion and that was my goal. It was taken with a Canon 300D, no tripod and window light, the background was done with a very simple graphic program. I don’t care if a line is slight tilt or if the corner of the leaves has not the little hairs, for me is more important the visual impression, the feeling that a picture awake at a first look. You are all very motivating people. So long --Nino Barbieri04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting subject, to be sure, but not one of the best possible images of it. The picture has been taken in the middle of the day, which was presumably when the photographer happened to be there, resulting in harsh lighting and shadows. Early morning or late afternoon light would have been a considerable improvement. It's not asking too much for this type of subject to ask the photographer to get up early! I'd happily support another image with improved lighting, though, as the subject does have potential. --MichaelMaggs21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was there for three hours (there are also a number of magnificent oaks there). In the morning and evening it is, because of the position of the sun, not possible to photograph al three sweet chestnuts on a row with the light coming from the side. I prefer this, because then the gnarls and other irregularities of the impressive stems are stressed. Probably more ideal according to your taste would be a low sun, but from the midday position. I like the lighting as it is now. Tbc14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry to spoil the party but this is not good enough. I love the composition and colours. Unfortunately the image quality is far from excelent: visible noise (and some artifacts) in the sky and dark parts, not enough detail. Alvesgaspar21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fir, I sometimes really think you take this whole FPC thing too seriously. He was joking! And please, fix your signing style. A link in your signature really makes it hard for other users. --Arad20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, fairly uninteresting composition, image quality problems. This is not anywhere near the best picture of Monument Valley available. The cloud formation is certainly impressive, but it's not that uncommon in the area. ~ trialsanderrors01:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with opposers. FP should have the quality of the QIs, and additional it should have artistic qualities. This one has artistic quality, but its not that good to slur over the technical flaws --Simonizer08:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forgot to mention that this is a historical photo and one of the earliest example of panorama work which explains the spacing between the sections of the panorama and the fadeout, that and the original panorama was done about 150+ years ago. Cat-five02:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a nice picture (I already added it about half a year ago to the german tokyo article), the historical value is really great, but given the really bad quality I don't think it should get fp-status. -- Gorgo18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a present day shot I'd agree wholeheartedly with you but the fact that this is from so long ago should be taken into account as well as the method used to make the panorama which is really part of the shot. Cat-five08:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The historical value is an overwhelmingly sufficient mitigating reason to support. If someone can provide a better equally historic panorama, then I'll consider withdrawing my support. -- Ram-Man23:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's many months later and the vote long ago decided, I'd like to point out that the historical value of this panorama is, in fact, exceptional. There are extremely few photographs of Edo (i.e. pre-1867 Tokyo), and virtually no other panoramas of the city from that time - let alone photographs of such high aesthetic and technical quality as this (and others) by Felice Beato. Beato's images of Japan are unique views of the country before Meiji and "modernisation". Pinkville18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some understanding of what it is and an appreciation for how much goes into producing such an image, but don't really see it meeting many FP criteria. But it seems to have a few enthusiastic supporters, so to give it half a chance, I've changed my vote to neutral :-) --Tony Wills05:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support As far as I can tell this is the maximum attainable resolution. And the people who know what is what will certainly see the point instead of a zillion colourful points. Wpedzich12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - First I must apologize for my ignorance: I don't know what the "Islet of Langerhans" is, as well as the "DAPI" and "Abs", which means that I cannot appreciate the scientific merit of the image. Aesthetically, the picture is not very appealing, so my "oppose" vote. - Alvesgaspar23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable image from the field of biomedicine exemplifying staining for cell structures and confocal microscopy - images like this that are fully freely licensed are pretty rare. Guidelines state - "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures" & "beautiful does not always mean valuable" (the converse also being true). I would urge the opposes above me to reconsider based on the clear value that the picture has. SFC939419:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike wikipedia, commons doesn't need an explicit encyclopedic value, but I think the opposite is also true (for fp-images): only encyclopedic value is not enough. It can (and maybe should) get featured on en.wikipedia though. -- Gorgo23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was taken about five years ago. This shot is a unique vue of Marseilles Roadsted that includes Vallon des Auffes and Frioul Islands. This point of view can only be obtained from a few privates appartments.
Oppose Sorry, but it is too small. It needs to be at least 2000 x 1000. Also, the horizon seems unnaturally curved and I don't like the perspective or composition. --Digon316:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info The quality isn't perfect, I know. But this picture was taken with a now obsolete digital camera. The horizon is indeed unnaturally curved. The perspective is the only originality of the picture. It is taken from a private building about 60 meters above see level in the alignment of two major touristic sites of Marseille : Vallon des Auffes (the tiny harbour in front) and Chateau d'If (the castle on the island). I'm not a photogaph (as you may have noticed ;-)) and I wish I could take this picture again with a more modern camera, but unfortunately I no more live in that flat :-( I don't know either if retreatment can improve the quality of this original picture (for instance correct distorsion or focus).
Oppose Do I oppose because the camera isn't that good? Considering that film cameras are always theoretically available, one can't blame the camera for the technical problems. The photographer needs to choose appropriate tools. Not all pictures need to be featured pictures to be useful either. There are not enough mitigating factors to support. The perspective is the prime feature of this image, but the technical flaws would seem to overpower it. -- Ram-Man03:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The JPG quality and filesize are both low. Unfortunately this was taken with a 2MP camera, so there is not much that can be done. This is a nice picture of a waterway at storm or flood stage, but unless someone can assert the importance of this particular image, I don't see enough mitigating reasons to ignore the quality problems. -- Ram-Man13:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm puzzled. Is this picture really better focused than this one and better quality than this one? I don't use to comment on user's oppinions but sometimes I just can't keep silent. Alvesgaspar14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe, everybody has its preferences for classification. I prefer originality and estetic quality of photography, the technical features as size of sample or some small wrong focused parto f it are from my point of view on the second place. --Karelj19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What's that horizontal blurry line (not the black bar) across the pic on the lower part of the photo ? Benh09:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a scanner fault; I suspect the pic is a scan from a slide, given the black edge at the bottom - MPF20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - would support if the black bar was removed and the horizontal blurry line and other artefacts were edited to be less obvious. - MPF20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nice view, would be very nice if the quality was better. I am mostly thinking of the horizontal lines and the blurriness. /Daniel7815:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and we know it's been a lot of work behind :) In addition to the scaling down of the picture, I'm finding the curve adjustment greatly improves the previous nomination. Benh22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Digon3 has been struggling here for a long time with his Bryce Canyon photos. This time I believe he got it. Congratulations. Alvesgaspar22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would merit promotion as an FP even were there no associated history; that Digon3 was so diligent here makes one even happier to support. Jahiegel08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The orginal image. The fish at the right have been flipped and pasted over the rock—the preceding unsigned comment is byBenAveling (talk • contribs) . Do not vote for this picture—the preceding unsigned comment is byDigon3 (talk • contribs)
Comment I don't see the point of having two versions of the same picture. We should be voting to replace the picture. In fact, the guideline say, "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with the higher score of votes." So I guess if this one gets more than 15 support vote, we replace the current one, otherwise there is not much point in voting.--Digon301:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It certainly looks nicer for having the rock removed. I don't know if it increases or decreases the 'value' of the photo. Probably both to different people, for different reasons. Regards, Ben Aveling22:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If original picture is already a featured, I do not see any reason for discussion about smaller part of it. --Karelj19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original picture is perfectly fine and there is no compelling reason for the rock to be removed, thus making the altered picture artificial. -- Ram-Man21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Colours are washed out and image looks posterized, lacking detail. Maybe the result of a heavy compression process. Alvesgaspar22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I can swear that this picture never knew any heavy compression process, nor any other changes since its exposure. --Floflo20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With this dimensions and file size, it means that the picture was compressed by the camera. Try always to use the best possible resolution to avoid compression artifacts and other imperfections. Alvesgaspar23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is good but unfortunately is blurred and the size is under the requirements and there is non mitigating reason for this. Could you take another one with greater resolution and maybe a tripod? --Jacopo15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Jacopo. With no mitigating reasons, at 1280x1024 the resolution is too low for a FP. -- Ram-Man23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please check the guidelines, the resolution is too low for FP. Also, the image is blurry and overexposed. Alvesgaspar18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeResolution is too low (less than 1600x1250). Please check the requirements for an FP. The new image is not as close a crop, but doesn't have enough detail IMO to be a FP. Sorry. -- Ram-Man22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Harsh lighting and resulting blown highlights (and do I see a minute amount of fringing where the stone meets the sky?)--HereToHelp (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The right version looks sharper too, did you sharpen it also ? It would be good if the image page of edited versions specified exactly what kind of edits that was made to the image. Now it just tells me "Edited". /Daniel7819:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The right version hasn't been nominated. I agree it looks sharper, but the only edit I made was the geometric correction. Alvesgaspar20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not so wow a picture, although I don't see what is wrong with it. Perhaps I'm missing the lower part of the subject in focus. Benh16:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an extremely close macro, at close to 1:1 reproduction. The depth of field at that distance is only a few millimeters deep. This image is shot at f/11. Any higher would start to degrade sharpness due to light diffraction. I didn't see a good reason to degrade bud sharpness to increase the depth of field by perhaps a millimeter or two at the stalk. The point of this image is to show the two buds in high resolution detail. Everything is natural, this was not a posed shot. Just because it isn't a flower or a cone doesn't mean it isn't beautiful or useful. -- Ram-Man18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I don't know the exact conditions this picture was taken under and I'm pretty much sure you know about that, but there are other ways to increase DOF than using smaller apertures. You could have got closer and use a shorter focal length for instance. Framing would have been the same but with a greater DOF. And this picture is good, but not much above average and if I support this one, then I'd support plenty of others... Benh06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I couldn't have gotten closer. At 1:1 magnification, I was already at the limit of the lens. You'd need a micro lens (as in microscope, not Nikon) to get closer. Ignoring pupil magnification effects, if the image in the frame is held constant, the DoF is basically constant as well (see here), regardless of the focal length used. Shorter focal lengths wouldn't work here, even if you include pupil magnfication which gives additional advantage (if anything) to telephoto lenses. Increasing the depth of field further would have required work outside of pure photography, such as image stacking of different exposures in software or some other trick. -- Ram-Man12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting far :) (and the DOF issue wasn't really my reason for opposing :)) but that's an interesting thing you tell me here. If I take the exemple described in the page you linked (paragraph focal length and depth of field), for a given framing DOF is, as you said, virtually constant but it seems the shorter focal length still have a few extra cm in DOF (up to 8cm which could have been enough for your subject). Wouldn't have this been sufficient (of course, this is given you have a (macro?) lens which can focuse at short distances) ? Benh21:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no such thing as a 1:1 magnification 10mm-20mm macro lens in the SLR format, although some point and shoots can do macro at that focal range, but most point and shoots suffer from severe lack of edge sharpness when that close and they suffer more quickly from diffraction degradation. Plus the table provided wasn't for macro. Apparently at macro settings the slight DoF advantage of wide angle lenses is lost anyway due to pupil magnfication. I realize that the reason this FP nom failed was not because of DoF but because of the other issues given. I've just noticed that in a number of situations there is a misunderstanding on how DoF works. Take this orange slug FP nom taken at 5mm with a small point-and-shoot. Even at only f/2.8 that image has almost the ideal depth of field/sharpness possible, due to the focal length of 5mm. -- Ram-Man21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only potential way to make this picture sharper would be to take the picture at a different angle so that more of the stick lies in a single plane perpendicular to the camera lens, that is, put more of the subject in the DoF range. However, the twig was blowing mightily in the wind and this was the best of a whole bunch of pictures. -- Ram-Man21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Flat lighting, soft colours and a poor background (should be much lighter or much darker for the subject to come out) all contribute to a somehow boring picture. Alvesgaspar22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a non-tilted version to a new name; if the non-tilted version is accepted feel free to upload over the original. I just didn't want to do this now as the original is up for FP and it should be available for comparison. -- Editor at Large • talk16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - amazing symmetry, great composition with the skyline at top 3rd, middle ship at centre, and front ship at bottom 3rd; colours are decent (if very blue) and waves/lines in the water add to the effect. Overall very nice. -- Editor at Large • talk16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - horizon still curved, not straight, and also the tilt is over-corrected, it is sloping nearly as much the other way. - MPF22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment check the image on its own instead of next to the tilted version; if you draw a straight line across the image you'll see that the two sides meet at exactly the same point. I used a guideline laid across the two edges where the horizon meets the sides of the image when rotating it, so unless the software borked it should be straight to within 3 pixels. Regarding the curve, that is to be expected when it is a picture of the ocean at that height/angle; the earth is curved, and an image of the ocean with nothing on the horizon to hide the curve/bring it closer is going to show that. I think the seeming tilt is an optical illusion due to the concentration of clouds on the right compared to the left. -- Editor at Large • talk23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, the earth's horizon is curved, but with a radius of 6,370km . . . to all practical purposes, that's straight, unless you're viewing from a point several tens of km above the earth's surface (i.e., up out of the atmosphere). The curvature here is caused by the camera lens. And I did draw a straight line across the pic (or, to be exact, scrolled down the pic so the horizon lined up with the top of the computer screen), and the right-hand side is a mm or two lower than the left hand side. The rotation done was 1°CW from the original; about 0.8° would have been more accurate. - MPF20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The white petals seem overexposed (even though they are not). Maybe with different lighting? I really like the composition though. --Digon316:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyway, it´s my comment. And you are supposed not to be the person who should decide, if it good or wrong. Its just comment!!! --Karelj19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If i am harsh i say that i am missing the "wow factor", but i do like the simplicity and "nun-like" beauty of the picture. --Diligent13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another very tough one... but I have to be consistent with my votes on QI : subject is not sharp enough to me (it is enough, but not for FP) and background not blurred enough, although not very distracting to me. Lighting makes the subject flat, but maybe it couldn't have been better. Also, there are small parts of other flowers on upper left and upper right corners which annoy me a little. Benh22:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More to the left would be inside a tunnel. I have some other shots which I have not yet uploaded. Let me see. Whats wrong with the lighting? --Dschwen16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lighting seems too harsh, which makes the picture less colorful (like the pine tree at the bottom). I think it would be better if taken at a different time of day. --Digon316:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is geocoded now. If you follow the links to the satellite imagery you'll see that the rockface with the tunnel portal only receives sun in the afternoon. Any earlier and the wall would be in shadow. Any later and the su would have set behind the mountains to the west. --Dschwen17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the image in full size is nicer than the thumbnail, it doesn't in my view have the 'wow' factor needed for FP. --MichaelMaggs06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even assuming that this is the best lighting possible (how about an overcast day? different time of year?), not all best possible pictures of every subject deserve to be featured pictures. I agree it lacks a 'wow' factor. -- Ram-Man17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ram-Man.Perhaps this place could't provide conditions to a very special shot.Vassil 28 April 2007
Support - Good composition, somewhat humorous, while still being useful. Do we have a scientific name for this particular variety of slime mold? Cary Bassdemandez16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes I like this. It does what is says it does well (UK based but we have had an ad campaign with the tag line "it does what it says on the tin" - maybe Johnny could help them out!) --Herbytalk thyme11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport - This is a great picture, but I'd feel better about supporting if the slime mold was species identified. -- Ram-Man17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it will get identified sooner or later, unless you need a microscope to tell... I'm a horticulturist, not a mycologist. The photograph is meant more as a demonstration of why slime molds aren't really something to worry about it they pop up in the garden (for use in a gardening Wikibook). "They grow on everything, so if you see them, just enjoy watching them and don't worry." --SB_Johnny|talk|books18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A support is a support in my book. It's only weak because I personally like the species identified, but it's still a support because that personal reason is not sufficient to ignore a great picture. -- Ram-Man23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As per MPF. Is another version available without the compression and fringing problems? If not, this should probably be QI. But it isn't so bad that I'd oppose. -- Ram-Man17:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't understand why this is "only" a quality image candidate. Great capture with pleasant colors, good sharpness and nice composition -- Benh17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, do doubt about it, but please add pictures to relevant content galleries or categories. The photo is not of much use if it can't be easily found. --che08:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It appears the nebulous oddity to which Karelj refers is simply detritus on the tree limb like that before the bird but covered in his/her/its shadow, and I don't think such item should really be construed as diminishing the quality of the composition; it's certainly not, at least to my eye, distracting or otherwise inappropriate. Jahiegel07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckle! That's hilarious. The picture isn't upside down, I took the picture just a few weeks ago. It was taken on a tripod. Its not even physically possible for the tripod to tilt the camera upside-down. -- Ram-Man22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well I suppose so. This cone was no longer physically attached (in a lifegiving sort of way) to the parent anyway. I suppose you could flip it upside-down if you wanted to. -- Ram-Man20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't quite understand the explanation: was the cone deliberately inverted or is it the result of some branch that colapsed? In my opinion the fact that the cone is not in its natural position takes away much value from the picture. Images in Commons are supposed not (only) to be beautiful but to be useful as encyclopedic illustrations. By the way, I like this picture a lot. Alvesgaspar16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither? Both? I did deliberately pose this picture, but I was not trying to be deceptive. The cone was attached to the piece of twig that wasn't attached to the tree. I posed it to make the picture easier to take: I wanted the parent tree as the background. I've rotated this picture 90 and 180 degrees, and in either case the cone isn't pointing straight up and I don't know what the natural configuration might look like, not being an expert. It wouldn't be hard to rotate it though. My intention was to be descriptive of the cone itself through the detail provided by a macro shot. Since it was no longer part of the tree, I didn't pay it's orientation any consideration. Maybe MPF can tell me how many degrees to rotate the source image and I can replace this one with another one. Or perhaps this one is good enough for its purpose. -- Ram-Man16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About 150°CW; unfortunately doing so makes the direction of the illumination (from below right) look rather odd. Would it be easy to take a new photo? - MPF18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's theoretically possible, but it wouldn't be for at least a week at the bare minimum and probably more than that. I don't have immediate access to the site at the moment. Of course it would be different lighting, a different cone, etc. etc. -- Ram-Man21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would to me, maybe you could try your recently discovered lens correction module in Gimp ;) (actually I wonder how good the results would look like) Benh07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport This would have been better perhaps if taken at a time of day that wouldn't wash out the background and desaturate the colors, but it's still a nice picture with the fringing removed. -- Ram-Man17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small (needs to be 2000 x 1000), and the reflection of the camera is visible in the picture. On top of that it is overexposed and artifacts are visible. --Digon322:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralSupport This is an exceptionally beautiful image. My problem is that these types of shots become much like sunsets. They are all beautiful, but what makes this one stand out? Update: After looking at existing astronomy FPs given below, I've changed my vote. This is better than some of the existing FP nebulas.-- Ram-Man16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself, it is an exceptionally beautiful image. Most sunsets look alike and are easy to take. If you look at FP Astronomy, they are quite varied, and only four pictures are of Nebulas. --Digon319:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree Hubble images are not so easy to take as sunsets, but this is not appealling. Let's keep room for really beautiful astronomic images. --Javier ME09:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brushtails are another animal which have no survival instincts, they become very tame in camp sites and national parks where they scavenge food off tourists and campers and I have always assumed that this is learned behaviour. But this (completely wild) one ended up letting me get so close that I could have touched it, they are inquisitive and quite inteligent and probably realised that I wasn't going to eat it.
They are nocturnal, and their eyes are red and the slightly glazed look seems to be natural as it was in all the photos I took of them
Oppose In the discussion of this and other images at Quality Images Candidates you said "I also had a powerfull torch for focusing, it's light would not show up in the photo but it's eyes would have contracted from having the torch shone in it's face". The glazed look is probably a fear reaction on the animal's part to the bright light. I can't approve of the lack of consideration given to your wild subjects in this and other photos, and I'm opposing on that basis. Your photos would in my view be much better if you kept well back and avoided stressing the subject. Any serious wildlife photographer will always take great care not to intrude, and I'm sorry that you seem to have no qualms. --MichaelMaggs21:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a load of possums eating the garden and they had every opurtunity to run away as I was aproaching, or to climb higher up the tree, I only used the light while taking my photos, I sat with them for about 20 minutes without the torch on waiting for a clear shot of one and they came closer, not in any way disturbed or scared. when the torch was on you could say that it's eyes would contract and it couldn't see anything outside the beam,and so could not run away, but why then did it continue to eat while I was photographing it? and why did it not run away when I turned the torch off? because it was not scared. I think the best sign that an animal is not scared is if it will eat in your presence, it shows they're comfortable with you. I agree with you that animals should not be disturbed, I can see that in nest photography the animal is inclined to stay even when scared and I will not get so close to nests again. your concern for the animals is touching, but I think you have no understanding of these animals. They had every opportunity to run away when the torch was off and instead they inquisitively came closer (I had got my photos by then so I did't reward it with a torch in th face) even after the torch had been on. --Benjamint44400:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Maggs is of course quite justified in his concerns about disturbing the wildlife being photographed, but I think it is misplaced concern regarding brush tailed possums. Yes they are probably wondering what is on the other end of that torch, but they are rather robust beasts, not particularly afraid of people and have been known to make their homes in peoples attics or beneath their houses. If they're in a tree they're usually quite sure of their own security and aren't intimidated by people or dogs. If they get annoyed by you they'll stop eating, climb higher and screech and cackle at you. Theses ones don't look to be worried at all (ok, I'm a bit biased as they are introduced noxious animals around here, with tens of millions chomping their way through our forests every night ;-) --Tony Wills12:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just too good to pass up for me. The enormous humor makes up for some slight technical flaws. I would have marketed this to a greeting card company. Masonbarge18:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a bad picture by any means. I've taken so many pictures of trees in contrasty daylight (like one of my favorite trees) that have looked far worse, so I appreciate the difficulty. That said, it's not the highest quality required for a FP. -- Ram-Man20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeFor Now. The image has good sharpness, but I don't like the lighting. The front flash creates hard shadows and hot spots. Diffuse lighting would be ideal. A better backdrop would be a plus too. I'd prefer a high quality version of the swinging pendulum image if this shot is going to be redone with better lighting, but either would have educational value. -- Ram-Man13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like how some of your shots use the wooden table. I'm referring specifically to the white wall, which detracts from this particular photo. -- Ram-Man14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Ram-Man. A good effort, but not enough care has been taken to get top quality lighting nor a good background. --MichaelMaggs14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I only had 2 x 2 feet of table to work with, so I put a board behind it. I don't like the shadows either; perhaps an edit could fix that? (I don't know how to do that; does one of you?) AndonicOTalk17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way to fix it is to take it again under different lighting conditions and perhaps a different background. If I was taking a shot like that, I'd put the table outdoors on a cloudy day (for diffuse lighting) and take it against a nice natural background or use a white bedsheet or even white printer paper. If I took it indoors, I'd try to put it where it gets indirect light from a window and take a long exposure. I'd always use a tripod. It gets much more complicated if you want to do it in a professional manner with full macro lighting (I wish I owned some!). Another good option is to turn down the power of the flash (if the camera allows it) to lessen the effect of the hotspots and increase ambient light input. It also occurs to me based on the question to another picture that perhaps this metronome is copyrighted (how old is it?) and the picture cannot be published here on the Commons. If that's the case, it may be allowed on En-wiki under fair-use. -- Ram-Man17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to take another image today. I don't know how old it is; all I know is that I bought it about 8 years ago, and it says W. Germany on the bottom (so it's at least 17 years old). AndonicOTalk18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we will get someone with more copyright experience to answer the question for us. My understanding based on Commons:Derivative works that this image is acceptable, but that's just my opinion. -- Ram-Man19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the alternate version, with the suggestion of motion. Since you are going to shoot th metronome again, maybe you could repeat that version too with a better background. Alvesgaspar23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sorry, the pictures I took today were worse than this one (natural light, but the background was overexposed). Unfortunately, I'm leaving in a few hours, and won't be back until Thursday, by which time the nomination will be almost over (it's 1 week, right?). When I return, I'll take new pictures, and re-nominate. AndonicOTalk15:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tower is tilted. You also might want to take it at a different angle so the tree doesn't hide part of the tower --Digon321:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on my evaluation criteria. The image is blotchy which appears to be due to aggressive noise reduction, even though it is still noisy. The image also has a strange color balance, probably caused by incandescent lighting. -- Ram-Man20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralI like it too much to oppose, but not quite enough to turn a blind eye to faults, eg, cropped feet. Regards, Ben Aveling05:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Both images are of the same tree, but are not the same image. I think they are both beautiful but serve different purposes. One is a closeup showing extreme detail, the other provides more perspective. This image provides additional context. -- Ram-Man02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support // These two pictures are incredible. The detail... the vivid colors... and so life-like, it couldn't be more beautiful if you were looking at it in person. Well done. JL (UTC) Please log in to vote --Digon315:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a vote from a friend of mine, User:Jina Lee, just learning how to use the Wikipedia/Commons. I didn't seek her vote on this and didn't want to push the issue to prevent allegations of ballot stuffing. -- Ram-Man14:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint44410:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC) The other one was only a few votes off being promoted, hopefully his one will do better. It has a richer colour and better composition than the first one .[reply]
Oppose I think it lacks a "wow" factor and the lighting seems flat. I also do not like the angle the picture was taken at. --Digon314:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My eye follows the side of the train and ends up at the billboard. Clearly the billboard is a distracting element. -- Ram-Man14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed. Oh, and Photographs of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (e.g. 1600 x 1250) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons. --MichaelMaggs21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Aesthetically interesting but quality not good enough. Lack of detail (strong compression?) and foreground unfocused. Alvesgaspar02:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like how the traces of the snowflakes become visible when entering the light cone. 84.75.77.249 12:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Lycaon21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that it is kind of neat: it looks like delicate wisps of hair; but it just doesn't seem like an FP to me. --Thisisbossi02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a surface map (seen from south pole) of Io based on multiple images taken by Galileo and Voyager probes. -- Catchi?17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "single" image. It is made out of multiple images taken by two space probes. Anything "missing" was never photographed by either. Spacecraft that fly-by do not normally pass over the poles of the object in question. Image illustrates the characteristics of the satellite. I wager it is an polar-Azimuthal -- Catchi?23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a surface map (seen from north pole) of Io based on multiple images taken by Galileo and Voyager probes. -- Catchi?17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "single" image. It is made out of multiple images taken by two space probes. Anything "missing" was never photographed by either. Spacecraft that fly-by do not normally pass over the poles of the object in question. Image illustrates the characteristics of the satellite. I wager it is an polar-Azimuthal -- Catchi?22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an azimuthal projection, but which one? Probably an ortographic projection, by the spacing of the parallels. Alvesgaspar23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, I know nothing about map projections. My lack of such knowledge shouldn't be a featured criteria. -- Catchi?23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a surface map (cylindrical projection) of Io based on multiple images taken by Galileo and Voyager probes. -- Catchi?17:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I believe this might be a valuable image in the sense given by our guidelines. But not the way it is presented here, with no hint on the meaning of the various colours, on the surface relief or on the scale. Like this, it is just a pretty picture, not enough for a FP. Alvesgaspar23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a NASA engineer. Image description page explains you the details much better than I can dream of. It seems to be a true-color image based on other images at en:Io (moon). -- Catchi?23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.ogg Vorbis (audio) support is fairly common. .ogg Theora (the codec we use for video) is less common winamp does not support Theora at this time.Geni12:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even though its a lighthouse (I love lighthouses), I don't like the lighting, composition, or the perspective that it was taken at. The picture seems a little bland and doesn't have a "wow" factor for me (and could you edit out the tourist?). --Digon323:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm with Digon3, the picture lacks magic maybe because of centered composition. But technical quality is very good, so my neutral vote. Alvesgaspar23:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps it could be a QI based on technical aspects, but it lacks the undefinable "wow factor" for a FP. -- Ram-Man13:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sorry, the rings don't come off until he dies :-(, but an essential part of the program to monitor their survival in the wild during the re-introduction program. --Tony Wills23:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree this angle makes bird look shorter, and I am not happy enough with the background, but I love this unusual perspective. --Javier ME23:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info They usually feed on the ground inside the forest, so most often you see them from this angle anyway. This particular one was hopping from branch to branch (looking for insects) on cut down trees on the edge of the forest, so in good light for a change. --Tony Wills12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Mikael Marguerie - uploaded & nominated by David Monniaux
Support This is not robocop or a storm trooper, this is a real-life gendarme mobile (member of a French riot control force) in full riot control gear, who is shooting tear gas using his grenade launcher... in the middle of action, at night. --David.Monniaux17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The resolution is low (under guidelines) and the quality isn't great, but the composition and subject matter are very nice. Just my opinion, but I don't think there are enough mitigating reasons to overcome the problems. Perhaps a QI instead. -- Ram-Man18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Do you have a larger version of this? If then you will have my support. Fantastic moment, very unusual compared with all the other pictures listed here. ---Bergwolf18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd like the bit of roadway at the bottom to be cropped out and, if possible, the sides extended slightly so the photo does not feel as constrained. --Thisisbossi02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good size, composition, lighting, and beautiful. The only problems I see other people having is that there are two other FP like yours, here and here, and the long exposure time. --Digon319:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the exposure time (~1/3 of a second) is stylistic, I won't disagree. If people don't like it for that reason, so be it. I probably have others with a faster speed. Update: I don't. If they don't like the long exposure, they can oppose, but it's the only one I have or can get. I would likely never be able to reproduce the exact conditions shown in this image: specific time of year, time of day, weather, naturalistic conditions in a failing Eastern hemlock forest. Within a few years, the hemlocks shown in this picture may all be gone due to the Hemlock woolly adelgid. It is not uncommon for dead hemlock trunks to clutter the image. See this image for an example. -- Ram-Man12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're referring to the water being slightly overexposed? I did bracket the exposure and this one was the best. Any darker and you lose the detail in the darker regions. I even had ideal lighting to eliminate even more contrasty lighting: taken in the evening near sunset on an overcast day. If I put up a lower exposure shot, someone else would complain about the underexposure. I've made large prints of this waterfall and the white water looks more than natural in this case. The water of the falls already spans ~65% of the image's range. Perhaps I'll see if I can reprocess the image. -- Ram-Man20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on a closer inspection, the picture looks quite noisy in the dark parts too. FP should be almost flawless. Lycaon09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too slow an exposure for a moving object (the water). Aim for around 1/50 or 1/60 second exposure for moving objects. - MPF22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long exposure is beautiful, but the image suffers from poor image quality at full res (artefacting and chromatic aberration). A down sample of the image might fix this issue tho. --Fir0002www06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious, what magnification are you looking at? Poor image quality? It's a 7MP image, and the minimum requirements are 2MP. If we applied this standard to all images, barely a one of them would pass. There is at most 1 or 2 pixel widths of CA anywhere in the image. This is invisible. You'd have to make huge prints just to notice what you are talking about. Maybe I should downsample to 1600x1200 and apply photoshop filters? At that resolution the CA wouldn't be visible because there wouldn't be enough resolution to show it, but the lost resolution would then be noticeable at the magnfications you're talking about. And what artifacts are you referring to? -- Ram-Man12:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at 100% which is what all voters should be doing. You are falling into the common error that more megapixels is more quality. Your image at 100% is poor quality. To illustrate the point, you can take a crop of a high grade image such as this and increase the res by 200% and you'll be getting similar quality to what your image is at 100%. That's not good. It's much better to resize it to a point where it is crisp and detailed at 100% - full res as I mentioned earlier of your current image has poor level of fine grade detail --Fir0002www06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not even slightly am I falling to that error: If anything, blaming the camera (cheap?) for the "problems" indicates a false belief that a better camera will yield better pictures. If there are flaws that actually matter, they are mine alone as the photographer. I'm referring only to the standards for an FP, which states that 2MP file resolution is sufficient (saying nothing about the effective spatial resolution). This image has more than 2MP of spatial resolution as you've proven here. It's great that some images have more resolution than others (for a number of technical reasons), but unless we've changed the FP standards, it shouldn't matter. I don't care what it looks like at 100%, because either you are looking at an image crop (which makes it a different image) or at a large print size at an unreasonable viewing distance. If I wanted a crop of the image to look good, I would have taken a different picture. If you want to view a large print size, you may be better off with the extra spatial information that you lose from resampling. At least users can make that choice for themselves. I strongly disagree that voters should use 100% crops as their viewpoint, as 99% of the time that is not how the end-user will view it. -- Ram-Man12:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear, are you saying that a down-sampled image, that is then enlarged to the original size will be better quality than the original at that size? --Tony Wills08:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all!! Dunno how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying that the full 3000px image has very poor quality at 100% (a result of a cheap camera I suppose). I used the example of Big Ben to show what a high quality image is - not necessarily because it's high res, but because at 100% there is heaps of detail. So much detail, that I could blow up the image to 200% and get as good or better quality than this photo at 100%. I'm saying this image has to be downsampled to solve the problem of poor IQ at 100% --Fir0002www09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a conclusion, it was a pointed question :-). So we have established that down-sampling looses information from the picture that can't be re-gained. Yes, of course we can hide deficiencies by down-sampling, and get the image past the eagle eyed FP/QI analysis. But do we end up with a 'better' image file? As the guidelines say, we can't predict what people will want to use the file for, by down-sampling we have destroyed a little info and restricted how users view the file (What if they want to print out a large poster, are they not better off with the original? A solution is to upload two versions, one for long term use, one to pass FP/QI scrutiny - but that's a wasteful solution given that the wiki has adequate software for scaling the image on the fly. Perhaps a better solution is to just specify the optimum resolution for the image (and set the FP display pages to serve it up at that resolution). --Tony Wills11:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that resampled image and find it oversharp with way too much contrast. I could take a similar picture with harsh contrast any day and adding photoshop sharpening later. However, getting a nice low-contrast image of a falls like that is very difficult without losing detail in the falls themselves or resorting to film or HDR/Photoshop tricks. Modifying it takes the photographer out of the photograph. I could have heavily post-processed the orginal image, but I don't like how that loses data through generational changes and restricts user's ability to use it. I don't see the purpose of tweaking an image to look good at an arbitrary resolution at 100%. Who even looks at images at 100%? The FP process is nice because it allows us to find and catalog some of the best looking pictures, but I'm not so obsessed that I will do anything I can for a FP. If it falls to been a FP, who cares? At least the picture is still useful. Also due to Bayer interpolationall digital cameras suffer from poor sharpness at 100% unless they are artificially sharpened or downsampled (possibly in camera). Some have slightly better spatial resolution than others, but they can never technically achieve 100% spatial resolution. -- Ram-Man12:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Fir0002 when he says that downsample should be used to improve image quality, when necessary. As a matter of fact that is a common practise among our best photographers, like Dilif and Fir himself, and the only way I know to get the kind of detail and sharpness of images like this, when using digital cameras. If an image looks poor in the screen at full resolution, we may be sure it will look alike, or worse, when printed. Then, I believe that we won't loose important information when we downsample a picture in order to improove its quality. In my opinion, all pictures nominated for FP or QI should be reviewed in full size and declined whenever they don't look good enough at that resolution. Alvesgaspar14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make so many points, it's hard to address them all. I'm going to ignore the fact that many monitors are so poor that photo-sensitive printing will always look better and assume that everyone has sharp, high contrast, high quality monitors. Even so, it is total nonsense that downsampling improves overall image quality. Perceived image quality depends solely on pixel density (dpi) at a specific viewing size and a specifc viewing distance. The reason that downsampling appears to work is because it takes information that is only visible at higher pixel densities and tries to cram it into a lower density to make it visible. This is great if you want to optimize for web viewing on a 72dpi to 100dpi monitor, but it is very bad if you want higher dpi photo-sensitive prints used in a hardcopy format. This is the reason that this image looks great printed at ~220dpi at 11"x14" (I have the print right here), but not as good at 11"x14" on my 100dpi monitor viewed from the same distance. If I printed that same downsampled image at the same print size, the quality would be no better than 100dpi on my monitor even if though the print medium is capable of 300dpi. There would absolutely be a partial quality loss and we should not mandate that for our users who may not use a monitor for image reproduction. Downsampling removes the subtle gradations between pixels by eliminating some of those pixels and introducing changes in contrast or sharpness, either more or less depending on the algorithm used. The other problem with reviewing at "full size" is that it isn't standardized. Unless you require a specific pixel density, viewing size, viewing distance, and identical eyesight, you can't compare them all the same way. Change any one of them and the evaulation criteria changes. It's not the fault of the image that a 1024x768 CRT display at 72dpi doesn't look very sharp, but you can downsample it to look great under those specific conditions. Viewing at "100%" doesn't mean the same thing for everyone just looking at one of the factors! Viewing at 100% is the same as cropping. You're not comparing what it would look like if it was printed at, say, 300dpi, unless you change your viewing distance accordingly. You're looking at a different image. If my image was printed at 3 feet wide and you viewed it from 6 inches away, sure you'd see problems, but who does that? I believe it is common practice because these photographers know that it is usually required to achieve FP status. It just makes it appear to have more image quality when viewed under certain specific conditions. Some are just unaware of the misconceptions. I suspect some professional photographers intentionally downsample their images to prevent commercial usage by not looking as good when sold as prints. -- Ram-Man15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FP should be flawless in general, not flawless only if printed as a post stamp. And this photo has some faults - most notably motion blur on trees (!) on the left. --Leafnode06:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The minor flaws are largely mitigated by the overall quality and beauty. Alvesgaspar 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Alvesgaspar, you voted already above. --Digon314:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor image quality (soft and unclear) and dislike the strong background. Try shooting at a larger aperture --Fir0002www06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, not sharp at full resolution. I think he's got the DOF about right and the striking strong contrast between the wire and the green country side is the main point of the photo. --Tony Wills11:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Fir0002, soft and unclear. Resolution is also too low for a FP, possibly due to cropping. However, I like the background. This is the case where strong contrast is a good thing. -- Ram-Man23:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRomary 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Effectively a little problem of sharpeness, but honnestly I would not have noticed it without the comments above. For me a good picture. Romary09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support At full size the man looks not so shocked as it seems to be at small size, but the image will work fine at a normal size; and it's very different from other FPs (neither a sunset, nor a flower, nor a wild beast, nor a NASA image...) --Javier ME23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please don't hate me for opposing :) It's just too plain-looking to me for an FP, though it'd make a nifty computer background and I must say that I'm now looking forward to holiday in Germany! If this were higher-res such that I could really zoom in and see those flowers, then I'd definitely lend my support. --Thisisbossi02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. This is why we should close these earlier, so people like you can't ruin perfection. Haha. Oh well, you won't sway too many people I think. -- Ram-Man02:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was actually going to oppose this until I opened it up and looked at it at full-res. Those bubbles are alluring! --Thisisbossi02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, and it's quite rare to get good pictures of celebrities here, but the background is just too messy for me. --startaq22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The picture really looks messy not only because the position of the insects but mainly due to the unsharpness of the subject and the colour/texture of the background. Alvesgaspar22:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The poor masking job is visible at my normal viewing distance. I'd consider the image against the real background or a modified image fixing the mask. The detail in the flowers is excellent. Update: Oppose only applies to the first image. -- Ram-Man16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is not masking, what is all that fringing on at the bottom of the middle flower? See the picture of the crop. -- Ram-Man22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well it looked fine at quarter to one in the morning when I uploaded it, but yes it is a bit rough around the edges ;-(. The clarity of the flowers is great (I don't know what Karelj is looking at) and worth the effort of fixing the fringing, so either upload it with the background intact, or edit it out completely :-) --Tony Wills11:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whether or not this a masking job or not I don't care. Without the weird fringing it just looks better. The edges are a little choppy perhaps from the fringe fixing, but it's now acceptable. I love the detail in the flowers. -- Ram-Man13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor masking in version two: has got even worse now! (for masking, I normally cut away bit by bit at at least 1000% magnif.) Lycaon19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could the original uploader consider reprocessing this from scratch or someone else redo the mask? Perhaps you'd change your vote if the masking was improved? -- Ram-Man19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support If he says he did not mask it you have to belive him. Maybe we are all trained on bad masking, sothat we no do not longer know how good low-key shots look like ;) Metoc21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IMAGE IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY Crop with absolute black background colour filled
Comment Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of terminology or methods, but I am surprised to see an absolute black background that isn't the result of editing. I have added a crop with the absolute black part replaced with another colour. Note things near parts of the flower, like a right angled edge and pockets of red. I am happy to accept the background was not removed with a 'mask', but I am convinced it was incompletely removed by a person or persons unknown ;-). Nothing wrong with removing it, but it needs to be done a little better :-) --Tony Wills13:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better than the other attempt at a FP and clearly a QI candidate. It appears to be very good technically, but I don't like the harsh contrast caused by the sunlight. -- Ram-Man23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Albula line is part of the Glacier Express, which probably is Europe's most popular rail line. It follows the main ridge of the swiss Alps. The Albula line itself is considered to be one of the most fascinating rail lines in Europe with its several helical tunnels, the Landwasser viaduct (pictures above) and the Albula tunnel (the highest alp traverse in regular operation, and the second highest in total). That being said it is a great ride even for non-railfans like me. --Dschwen08:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how popular it is, but in France I never heard of it. I don't live near the Alps, so maybe when I'll go there I'll have the pleasure to ride this train. The photo was taken from the other end of the train ? --Atoma08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The resolution is too small. It needs to be at least 2000 x 1000. As for the picture itself, I think it lacks a "wow" factor for it to be a featured picture. --Digon315:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality, especially in the trees. Water has a "muddy" look. Note: This is technically less than the requiredrecommended 2MP (1600x1200 is less than 1600x1250). -- Ram-Man22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was intended to be a word of advice, not my reason for opposition. The reason it's a stated guideline is because many, including myself, will not support an image less than 2MP. It's a guideline, but it's one that people follow. I personally exempt 1600x1200, because it's such a common size and it is basically 2MP. -- Ram-Man11:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes it might if it were extraordinary, which is not the case, though this is a carefully drawn illustration. Alvesgaspar19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This probably took a bit of effort to make and I don't want to downplay that, but there are a lot of illustrations that I like better than this. -- Ram-Man04:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, for an old image like this I'd expect a good quality scan at the highest resolution that the original print could stand. I'd also want to make sure the original was of a good quality. This image appears to have been taken from a poor quality copy of the original postcard and is to my eye nowhere near FP standards. Even if the scan had been taken from the original postcard, it probably would still fail as postcards of this subject matter are not that hard to find for a collector. --MichaelMaggs17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small and poor quality - Alvesgaspar13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose it's a great portrait, and the vignetting is well to the point. However, the file size is too low, and there is rarely a mitigating reason for this in a studio portrait! Motion to close early, as per this discussion. -- Ram-Man11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At 1576x2045 and only 445kB, there is not enough detail in this image and the resultant quality is low and blurred. -- Ram-Man11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, this is really to small, please check the guidelines on image size. Also, the quality of the scan is quite poor. Alvesgaspar22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too small
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Neutral I've seen Luc Viatour's website and his work is amazing, but I feel that this particular image falls just barely outside my standard evaluation criteria. At f/4.8, the DoF is just too shallow in this case. An oppose vote here would be injustice, as it is right at my evaluation threshold. It's a great shot. -- Ram-Man13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it ! And the light coming from the top adds a "don't know how to describe" atmosphere. Benh12:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a magic shot and a valuable picture for Commons, no matter the DOF is the perfect one or not. And I want to congratulate the author for it. Alvesgaspar00:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. It's a souvenir, but I don't remember if it was given to me by someone who went to Paris, or if I purchased it at Epcot... In any case, I don't think it's copyrighted. AndonicOTalk17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lacks relevance (the guidelines call it value), first of all because the subject is kitschy and trivial and second because it doesn't illustrate in a clear way any photographic technique. Also, quality is not good enough: the subject is not perfectly focused (a higher f-number would probably be required) and the "flou" in the background looks artificial and not pretty. In this case I think that our evaluation criteria are all we need to not promoting this picture. Alvesgaspar18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm back home. The background looks weird because a blue wall and a brown desk were both blurred by the camera, and the reflection of the wall on the desk as well. Also, what kind of lens info do you need? The lens is 18-55 mm, in case that's what you meant. AndonicOTalk23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is superb. This has great educational value and is already a FP on the English Wikipedia. It looks like this may have been taken with a front flash, but the hot spots are not that bad considering all the positives. -- Ram-Man13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The red print could be removed in post-processing and some sharpening applied in the process. Perhaps I'll take a stab at that if you'd consider changing your vote. UPDATE: There is a lot of good data in this file. Even a simple unsharp mask and curve adjustment improves an already good image dramatically. -- Ram-Man18:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only make simple changes on my current computer. I'll have access to a computer with photoshop in a few hours, and then I can hopefully fix the coloring issues. -- Ram-Man19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded another edit which removes the red marks from the nuts. I also applied sharpening and brightened it up a little. My lightness/contrast changes are more conservative than the ones Digon performed. -- Ram-Man21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 08:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I took this in an orchard where these birds were practicaly swarming over the ripe fruit, the white patch in the BG is netting over a tree to (unsuccesfully) keep them out, this is a juvenile which was being tended by several adults.--Benjamint44408:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Strongly pixelated at upper left corner, artifacts around bird, ugly background. The bird is cute though it looks unhappy... Alvesgaspar16:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support a Quality Picture nomination, but as featured picture you need a better background and non-distracting surrounding. --startaq00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am surprised at the comments about the background. The whole point of interest about the photo, is the contrast between the beauty of the butterfly against the harsh clay ground covered with plant debris - not just another butterfly on flower cliché. --Tony Wills08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The butterfly is very sharp and I agree with Tony Wills that the background is part of the alure of this image. I don't know that butterflies on flowers are cliché though, because they spend so much of their lives on flowers. Still, many butterflies, like this Red Admiral, like to rest on the ground. I have an photo of an Eastern Tiger Swallowtail that has a similar type of background. I do understand opposing because of the blurred green piece of grass on the left side. -- Ram-Man15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it the blurred green & brown piece of grass coming in from the left side that annoys people most, or the short green piece on the ground beyond, or the whole stem of grass growing on the left? --Tony Wills12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is the very blurred green and brown piece of grass coming in from the left side and the whole stem of grass that "touches" the butterfly on the left. Tbc07:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There appear to be grey circular smudges at various points in the image. They don't look like natural clouds to me and are distracting. -- Ram-Man13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful and scaring. I will support after the smudges (can't be water droplets, right?...) are eliminated. Alvesgaspar20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are either dust on the lens of the camera or the porthole of the space station. I personally do not feel comfortable carrying out the cleanup task, if someone else does much appreciated ;)--Nilfanion23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose evaluating at my criteria, I noticed what looks to be bad noise. Upon more than 100% magnfication, that noise would seem to be jpeg artifacts. Considering the low resolution (< 1600x1200), there are not enough mitigating reasons to support. -- Ram-Man22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Messier 82. Composite of Chandra, HST and Spitzer photos. created by Chandra, HST and Spitzer telescopes - uploaded by Winiar - nominated by Winiar --Winiar✉15:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Space pictures are a lot like sunsets. All very pretty. They have to be something special (like this one) to support. This one has banding and other issues. I'm sure there are good technical reasons for all of this, but I don't care for the quality and the content. I won't deny that it's pretty. -- Ram-Man22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either I misunderstand you or you misunderstand me. I'm referring specifically to featured picture requirements, not project applicability. There are many thousands of images that are not FP quality but are extremely educational and useful. I'm not worried about whether or not this image is educational, because clearly it is. In fact, project applicability should be a core/basic requirement for all FP candidates. The reason that guidelines discuss sunsets is because by their very core nature they are beautiful, so beauty alone is not enough for a FP. These "space pictures" are similarly almost always very beautiful. If beauty was the main reason to add them, then there would be no reason to vote. Just automatically make them FP. Looking at the technical quality of this image, there are defects, not the least of which is banding and streaking. The banding also distracts from the beauty. This is art and art is inherently subjective. Obviously people disagree with me, and that's fine. -- Ram-Man01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many pictures of sunsets. Making all good ones as featured wouldn't make sense. This space object does not have another "Featured" version so your approach is flawed IMHO. -- Catchi?17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because my reasoning is not totally clear from the above statement. From my evaluation criteria: "Not all useful and thoeretically best images of a particular subject should or need to be featured pictures" (emphasis added). -- Ram-Man17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The colors are beautiful, but I'd like to see more definition and sharpness in the flowers themselves. It appears that the focus is on the leaf, not the flowers. The flowers appear slightly overexposed, only occupying ~12% of the tonal range, although they are not blown out. Maybe better focus would fix this. At f/4 on a 2/3" sensor, it is approaching defraction effects (~f/4.4), but perhaps a little more depth of field would have been nice, but this is a minor point as this is close to f/10 or f/11 on a DSLR. -- Ram-Man13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm finding this subject beautiful (and the nice composition certainly helps). I agree with Ram Man that it very slightly lacks sharpness, but I think it's a issue shared by all pictures from Alvesgaspar and not a misfocus problem. I don't think it's overexposed. Benh16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info - I don't have a DSLR (yet) and my presente camera, although excellent in many aspects, suffers from some unsharpness and chromatic noise in full resolution, even with relatively low ISO settings. But I prefer to have soft pictures than artificial fringing or the presence of artifacts. It is an aesthetical preference, I suppose. I take this limitation as a chalenge, while I can't aspire to the equipment (and talent!) of Dilif and Fir... Alvesgaspar21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are not skilled enough to exceed the limits of their equipment. Clearly you are. Non-SLRs tend to be sharp at macro only in the center of the frame, perhaps that is the issue here. -- Ram-Man12:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, but you might well replace skill with patience, persistence and hard word. The nicest thing about digital photography is that it is now easy and cheap to shoot 100 times and chose the best one. Alvesgaspar14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not a bad picture, perhaps a QI, but the front flash hotspots are distracting. Even though this was taken with a DSLR and downsampled to the minimum resolution, the background still appears noisy to me. -- Ram-Man13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kozák11:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) — Nice sharpness and nice detail. Not so well framing is IMHO compensated by great depth-of-field and focus shifted to left.[reply]
Comment With respect to framing, I intentionally try to fill the frame as much as possible to record as much detail of the subject as possible. Since this is about writing an encyclopedia, I prefer to maximize encyclopedic value at the expense of a little compositional value. According to the guidelines "Value" is the primary goal of this process. Technical aspects, like composition, are secondary. I do have another picture of the same subject taken from a step back, but of course it has less pixel detail dedicated to the flowers, and due to the different field of view has a more distracting background. -- Ram-Man00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But why is the lower part of the cone in the shadow? The sky is clean and it is two o'clock in the afternoon. Is there another mountain in the back of the photographer? Alvesgaspar22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a difficult shot, but it's just too noisy. Had this been taken at the camera's lowest ISO setting on a tripod, it may have been ok, but the dark areas have lost too much definition. -- Ram-Man16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentInteresting to note that this image is great (and will be a FP) and it has a big dark blotch next to the bird's head and a dark diagnonal bar. Of course this one failed and it has a non-distracting background. I only have to wonder if it was a pretty flower if the votes wouldn't be totally different. As far as I can tell there are no FP of plants that are just "boring" leaves and other equally important items biologically and educationally speaking. There are, however, quite a few flowers. I've tried grey, blue, and green backgrounds for "boring" subjects. If I try this sunflower, I'll add red to the list. My cone was brown against a brown background, but people seemed to like that one. Go figure. Maybe I'll just take a piece of paper and shoot against a fake white background instead from now on. -- Ram-Man13:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my votes at the mentioned pictures? So, dont flame around. The white stains next to the leaves are distracting in my opinion, so I vote against it. Thats all! --Simonizer07:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree - I think this image is "special", it is aesthetically pleasing. It's got nice color, both in the subject and the background. True it's not a flower, but it's not a "boring" leaf, either. Jina Lee05:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Technically its very good but i saw pictures like this many times before, whats so special on this object ? —the preceding unsigned comment is byBergwolf (talk • contribs)
First of all, if this was a pretty yellow flower with the same technical quality, it would be an easy FP. If we oppose this because "I've seen it before", why don't we do it for flowers as well? or NASA images? The truth is, we don't have any leaf FPs and there are no equivalent photos on the commons of this species. Leaves are just not as "sexy" as a flower, NASA image, sunset, or a butterfly. Second, it's pretty in its own form, as emerging life. The "bunny ear" shape is also aesthetically pleasing. The green foreground on blue background and red foreground on green background add additional interest and contrast, incorporating the three primary colors of light. The composition is simple, unlike many other plant and animal pictures with cluttered backgrounds that become FPs anyway. And even though the leaf is almost centered, the stalk is not, giving it lovely anti-symmetry. The reason I put forth this image is to ask the question: Can we have a FP of objects that are not flowers, insects, nice landscapes, or NASA images? This image may be simple, but who has ever taken the time to truely appreciate this natural form? There are very few high-quality images like this available on the internet or in books, so it has quite a bit of educational value. -- Ram-Man18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is very good, but it has no wow-factor. And thats what FP is all about. If the voters are not enthusiastic about it, the picture wont become a FP. I must admit that its hard to get a wow-factor in picture with an subject that is not as beautiful as a flower or a galactical nebular, but i dont think that it is impossible. --Simonizer06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's very pretty and proves that a photographer with only a 2MP 3MP camera can still produce nice pictures. My understanding is that at 5mm and f/2.8, the DoF here is already approaching the maximum for a camera with such a tiny sensor before diffraction effects degrade the wonderful sharpness. It's about the same as what I'd get at ~f/13 on my Nikon SLR. -- Ram-Man19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I also like the subject and technical quality is fine. But composition is not balanced IMO, with several boats competing for the viewer's attention and many other elements randomly distributed. Alvesgaspar20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject, but composition isnt that good. Its a typical horizon in the middle picture. That makes a great subject rather boring. Too much space of the picture is wasted for a quite unspectacular sky --Simonizer07:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Simonizer. Also the blue mast on the far right is out of place and should have at least been cropped out. -- Ram-Man12:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the least, crop or photoshop out the blue mast at the right. If the subject is still as-is, I recommend that you go out there and get another photo from a position about half a meter lower: hiding most of the horizon behind the boat. --Thisisbossi02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some small changes have been made: the blue mast on the right is now edited out and the sky is slightly cropped. -- MJJR19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a very typical subject. Due tue that the standart is high. But unfortunately not reached. I know a lot of better images of the subject ;) Metoc22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the high noise were in a corner or the background it might be ok, but not in such an important part of the image as the face and hands. I'd also automatically oppose if this was intentionally upsampled, but this does appear to be the 7MP resolution straight out of the camera. -- Ram-Man18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor quality
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose – It sure is a nice picture, but when i take a look at full size (i have 1920x1200), i can see that there is some bad focus in it, unfortunately. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neat perspective, but I don't feel like any subject asserts itself -- all I get to see is the top of pillars. --Thisisbossi02:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution and distracting foreground. Do you have a higher resolution version available? This is below the guidelines (minimum 1600x1200) and is quite unlikely to succeed. -- Ram-Man17:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment I checked the histogram in detail. A large portion of the whites occupy the uppermost 4% of the tonal range. On an 8-bit image, that's almost invisible tonality. Expanding the range artificially replaces the burned out highlights with posterization. "Burned" here should mean overexposed, not clipped, since technically the histogram is not severely clipped. The heart is beautiful, for sure, but the petals are almost pure white. This image (and mine below) show the problems with 8-bit digitized images of white objects. Try to reproduce the natural whites and you blow out the tonality in the highlights. Expose less and the whole thing looks unnaturally murky. So on this image people are complaining about blown highlights, while on my image there is question about it being "murky". It's hard to get it right! -- Ram-Man20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When we look at a white flower like this, under these same light conditions, do we really see much more detail than the one which is depicted in the photo? Very often we forget that that our own eyes also have a sensibility limit. Is it fair to require a photo to show more than what we see with our own eyes? - Alvesgaspar21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThe human eye sees with *much* greater tonal range than what the 256 tonal gradations are in an image. It can also see at a higher resolution with which to distinquish slight variations in tone. The eye can distinguish between lights and darks automatically and our brain makes it all seem good. This image is overexposed and it doesn't look natural to me. In some images this isn't a problem, but in this image the whites make up most of the content. This image seems to have about the level of tonality that I'm looking for. I really appreciate the difficulty. I find this image of mine to be extremely beautiful, but it's overexposed. I think it looks good anyway, but it wouldn't survive a FP candidacy. -- Ram-Man04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small. Images nominated here normally need to be at least 2Mpx in size. Are you able to upload a higher-resolution version?
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment A great image, but let's see it not so compressed (remember JPG is a lossy format and looses info the more you compress), I would have expected a reasonable compression (eg 95% quality setting) of an image of those dimensions to result in a file size in the range 1.5MB to 2MB --Tony Wills13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great image ! Would support if the image would be replaced by a higher quality image (less compression). The jpeg artficacts are really visible in full-size resolution. --Atoma20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know how that happened because I just a have a load of photoshop actions that downsample and save for web so the compression should be exactly the same as all my other images.
SupportSupport (Hope this will count as a double support ;)) A great panorama, and one of my favorites so far on Wikipedias and Commons. The colour tones which I find inadequate on your animal pictures here fits remarkably well and in addition to the fog/cloud/mist gives this image a wonderful atmosphere. I'm really missing words to tell how I feel. Now I just wish I could take a similar picture... Congratulations !!! Benh11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the HDR that's important, I only state that to be absolutely clear that it's been manipulated as such. Evaluators tend to oppose images that have been manipulated when it wasn't clearly stated. It was not my intention to showcase it as an HDR image, as I think that's a very minor aspect (basically it kept the sky from being somewhat blown out and didn't affect the rest). The special part of this image is how it showcases a traditional Lancaster County covered bridge. See this article for more information on these bridges. -- Ram-Man18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not special enough, good technique though. The photographer of the "Bridges of Madison County", by Robert James Waller, used to get up very early in the morning just to get the best lighting... Alvesgaspar22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what would be special enough? I just don't get it. These bridges are historical and iconic, and this is a great picture technically. More specifically, what does this picture lack that these here do not? -- Ram-Man23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know, all attempts for parameterizing beauty seem a little ridiculous. But although we cannot explain the "wow factor", it happens quite often than we agree in identifying its realizations. There are quite a couple of examples in this page right now (at least one of them is yours) - Alvesgaspar23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it needs an Amish horse and buggy (this and this too). You said so yourself, this image is good technically. From an artistic standpoint, it has all sorts of visually appealing attributes, from the bright primary color contrasts (Red, Green, Blue) to the various lines showing perspective, contrast and texture. It even has a farm for the unspoken barn similarity. Perhaps it's unfamiliarity for many people who have not ever seen such a covered bridge or witnessed the cultural romanticism surrounding it. I still don't see why most other structures have a wow factor more than this one. I find some of them more boring or only there because they are of a famous object. (Of course some are truely exceptional) I realize art is in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes I just wish I could understand it, as facinating as it is to see all these people try to vote on art. -- Ram-Man23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have seen a lot of covered bridges, mainly in Vermont and New Hampshire. And these bridges have something romantic. But this picture dont show this romantic thing. Try another daytime, another point of view (maybe with the river on the picture too) or even another season (indian summer for example). --Simonizer07:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. It helps explain what you are looking for in a FP covered bridge photo. I have quite a few photos (not of this bridge) that are similar in composition to the first two, speaking nothing of other technical aspects. I personally find them boring (!), having taken so many of them in that basic configuration. To me, the "three-quarters" view is the most dynamic and pleasing. I don't care for the hard lighting of the first one, although fall colors are never a bad thing. Sky and colors are good on the second, but again I find the composition boring. The third one is a great shot that has emotion, but as a educational tool, it's less useful. Nothing wrong with the fourth. The fifth one is beautiful. It reminds me of this and this (ignoring the obvious exposure differences). Now that I've cataloged 28 of the county's covered bridges, I may go back to them from time to time at the ideal time of day and selectively try to get better pictures technically. Not sure we'll ever agree about some of the compositional issues though! -- Ram-Man15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your information, I have uploaded 178 covered bridge pictures. Most of them are not FP quality because I had to sacrifice lighting to get so many pictures in a span of just 3 or 4 days. I've tried all sorts of compositions. I'd try my first QI as a FP, but I fear that it would be shot down because of the exposure, despite being very difficult to take well under only natural lighting. Either you blow out the highlights (daytime), or you slow the shutter speeds and introduce long exposure noise (sunset, sunrise). I suppose the compass orientation plays a huge part, but I can't really move the bridge for better lighting :) -- Ram-Man15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info For me, the thing that's missing in this nomination is interesting lighting. That's not always needed, but here the combination of flat lighting and a straightforward treatment of the subject gives the impression (wrong I know) that this is a simple record photograph. Not all technically excellent images are necessarily right as FP material. I for one look for at least some 'wow' factor which is missing here. Hope that helps; just my view. --MichaelMaggs21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to oppose this edit, because of the perspective distortion and the composition (with the road near the center). -- Ram-Man18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the composition, the sky and the colours (the distortion can be corrected, at least partially). What I don't like is the excessive chromatic noise. Alvesgaspar19:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The layout of the photo is aligned such that the alley appears to be the primary subject, but yet I'd be more interested in the buildings than the alleyway, which appears rather bland on its own. This is much like many of my photos: I want to capture everything in the picture so that I remember it all, but in the process I lose the "aura" specific to each individual subject within. --Thisisbossi02:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the distortion is a little off, and it's rather noisy. Also I'd like the buildings instead of the alleyway (per Thisisbossi). Majorly(hot!)18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was wondering why you hadn't nominated it. Light coming through wings is nice. (pity there are no bits of nice green grass, but that's ok ;-) --Tony Wills09:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's "just a bug" on a flower. This image is obviously about the bug, since much of the flower isn't even included in this image. It doesn't have a "wow factor" like, say, a pollen covered bee. -- Ram-Man05:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the colors a lot which gives a great contrast to the bug. Do you saw the larve, 60px left on the bugs head ? I really would fokus with a 20x magnification onto it to see exactly what species it is. Makro Freak World. --Makro Freak19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has a murky, stormy look that doesn't help the mood of the scene, that is, the mood doesn't match the content. The stormy look contributes to the overall unsharp feel. -- Ram-Man05:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Composition is good and the building beautiful. A discrete photoshoping might help the murky look: increase saturation a bit and try to sharpen image. Also, I would try to fix the geometric distortion caused by the wide-angle lens. Alvesgaspar08:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I added a third version: geometric distortion corrected with program ShiftN (on Windows PC), saturation and brightness slightly increased, image sharpened. -- MJJR14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vassil: As in crop a bit off the left? Like how much? Also, I couldn't get any closer because the cameras shadow would obscure the subject, and I didn't want it to fly away. -IG-6416:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's nice, and I don't need a crop. The aphids make this shot special over a standard "lady bug" picture. -- Ram-Man02:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote left by User:Groupie alias Heidi, looks like a valid vote to me, I don't think there's anything in the rules that says they've got to sign properly, just that they must be logged in --Tony Wills13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it appears that User:Groupie is also a "virtual" one, since it was created with the only purpose of voting here (no edits before or after). This is the same as an anonymous user. - Alvesgaspar23:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, but users don't have different levels of ability to vote - creating a usercode to vote on something is quite valid, so long as they aren't using multiple 'sock puppet' accounts. If that is your concern then you should ask an admin to check-out the account and find whether for instance the same IP address has been used to create lots of accounts and there are lots of invalid votes and other activities. --Tony Wills23:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attractive, informative. Decent resolution. It needs categories, some description translations, categories, and geocoding but I trust someone will do this before the featured discussion is complete. --Gmaxwell20:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been listed at the species page, Panthera pardus orientalis, but it isn't categorized. Everytime I categorize a species, it gets removed when someone wants it to be just on the species page. Someone else can fight that battle. -- Ram-Man21:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need a category when it is on the species page. I used to fight that battle, but have surrendered lately ;-) -- Lycaon06:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support when i was a child, every month the pharmacy on the corner had a new poster with such pictures. 100% Flashback ! --Makro Freak22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd expect the DoF to be shallow on a shot like this, but I'd prefer a vertical orientation showing more of the spider instead of the distracting elements on the left in this image. -- Ram-Man23:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with Ram-Man. Also, the shoot was taken too close. A little further away and the image would be less confusing. Alvesgaspar08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support monster!Like it very much because you need to take a second look on it. --Heidi 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC) - - Sorry, no such user in Commons! - Alvesgaspar15:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info False-color (Wavelength: 3.6 microns (blue), 4.5 microns (green), 5.8 microns (orange), 8.0 microns (red)) photograph of Milky Way core regions in IR created by NASA (Spitzer Space Telescope) - uploaded and nominated by Winiar✉19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty soon we'll have every NASA photo as a FP. This one does "speak to me", in a manner of speaking. -- Ram-Man23:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's beautiful, but we cannot FP every NASA photo solely because it has massive resolution and a subject that piques everyone's curiosity and impression of beauty. As I see it: it does not really assert a significant subject as compared to other NASA photos. --Thisisbossi02:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that argument for other images. However, in this case I think there is good reason to support. First of all, there are no other Astronomy FPs that show in this kind of detail how many stars are out there. this image is similar in this purpose, but IMO is of inferior quality. this image from Spitzer is also of inferior quality, though arguably a better subject. This IR type image is quite nice and educationally speaking it is useful to show how IR can "see" things that visible light can't. -- Ram-Man02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be handy if another version could be linked from this image's description page, with that version showing the same viewpoint but in visible color for comparison (provided such an image exists). --Thisisbossi12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't get me wrong: it is a neat photo and is of decent quality; but it seems to be a bit cluttered. I wish I could offer a bit more constructive advice! --Thisisbossi02:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh bother, I've been back and forth over this one. The background bothers me, but I just love the captured moment. -- Ram-Man04:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The resolution is high, but the quality is not. The animals themselves are not very sharp and/or in focus. This FP has very similar content for comparison. -- Ram-Man23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ram-Man. A pity, the colours are good, as is the subject matter. Do you have any other photos of the beasties? Regards, Ben Aveling12:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture, great location but there is too much noise everywhere which disturbs my imagination to be there --Bergwolf18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this picture would be of more educational value if it was in the daytime. I know no one pays attentions to the guidelines where "educational value" is supposed to be important over the "wow factor" and daylight skylines are supposed to be more valuable vs. nighttime. In the daytime, this subject wouldn't have the noise problem. -- Ram-Man04:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral From a technical point of view (image too soft and details hardly distinguishable), I'd have opposed, but it's waaay too cute. Benh16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The right-hand version seems to have been upsampled from a version having many fewer pixels, resulting in loads of JPEG artefacts. --MichaelMaggs21:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor photographic quality, due to small size and high compression - Alvesgaspar22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose Great shot, but the camera needs to have been using a much higher quality setting, for example look at the water in the fore-ground, very pixelated. Higher resolution, less compression needed --Tony Wills23:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The right-hand version seems to have been upsampled from a version having many fewer pixels, resulting in loads of JPEG artefacts. --MichaelMaggs21:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor photographic quality, due to small size and high compression - Alvesgaspar22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: far too small in size
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose - It is better now, but I don't like the lighting (too dark) and the composition (not very interesting). Looking at the trees, it appears that some tilt still remains. Alvesgaspar16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Becuase of bad image quality, poor resolution, grainy, and a smudge in the lower left corner (Its probably a scan, look at the bottom frame). Link to the original nomination
Delist , unless the author could provide a higher resolution image. This is nice, but too small and a tad blurry. -- Ram-Man11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The bulk of the creature is sharp enough. And we have a shortage of Featured Reptiles. If we remove this we should probably remove Image:Red-headed_Rock_Agama.jpg as well, as it suffers the faults with a less attractive composition. And that would leave us with only 3 featured reptiles. If someone can upload/nominate some better reptiles, I might change my mind. Regards, Ben Aveling12:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, we should have different entrance criteria for featured pictures based on whether or not we already have that type of picture, but it is clear that it doesn't work that way. No, I think we should judge each image on its own merits, and the one that you suggest should be defeatured. Both it and this one would fail if they were attempted as new FP candidates, which is the whole point. -- Ram-Man13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's almost very good, but even some of the florets in the middle of the picture are out of focus. The small DOF is not in itself an issue for me, but I would expect the front edge of the main florets to be sharp. Also, a vertical aspect image would be better. --MichaelMaggs09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition/lighting looks very unnatural, almost as if you'd cut off the branch and photographed it against some kind of background. On top of that, although sharp etc, they're just a bunch of dead leaves, hardly striking! Needed a bit of PS work IMO so I've uploaded an edit FWIW --Fir0002www09:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A nice clear image (I don't agree with it looking unnatural to be honest), however I do agree it isn't really striking, just some leaves... Majorly(hot!)10:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At some point I will just give up trying to get a featured picture of a plant that isn't a flower, since this may be my absolute favorite of the bunch, but I'm fairly persistent. And this is natural sky color on a beautiful mostly clear day at noon. Had I shot it 180 degrees in reverse, the sun would have been in the picture and it would have been washed out. This image proves that you can take good pictures at any time of day. As for the content itself, the leaves are what are special, but alas they are not flowers. The sawtooth pattern and the sharp texture on the leaves are being highlighted along with the fact that they stay on the tree all the way to spring, so there is an educational appeal. The leaf texture is more beautiful to me than that of some flowers. From an artistic side of thing, combine it with the natural color contrast and you get the "wow factor", IMO. Oh and as a thumbnail, this isn't a very good picture. It must be viewed large enough to see the leaves in detail. -- Ram-Man11:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I like it, it's pretty. The detail on some of the leaves is fantastic. The color combination with the brown on blue works for me. But a lot of the leaves are out of focus. Likewise the branch, though that doesn't worry me - the leaves are the main game. If anyone actually votes "no" on the grounds that "they're just leaves" I'll vote "yes" in protest. :-) Otherwise, neutral. For what it's worth, I prefer the edited version. Regards, Ben Aveling12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at f/8, the DoF could be a little bit more, but besides being a clear day, it was also very windy and I needed the fast shutter speed to keep that branch from waving back and forth while maintaining sharpness. Oh well, can't go back and do it again anyway. -- Ram-Man12:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info The first picture is not the same as the picture that started this nomination but is the unmodified original and is shown as an example. The second image was nominated and the third image was an image edit by Chris_huh. -- Ram-Man14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you mention that. If you look at the file upload history, you'll see that I intentionally darkened the blacks from the original version. I, and some others I showed it to, prefer the one with darker blacks and more contrast. Perhaps it's personal preference or something, but on my monitor the blacks appear fine. But yes, the detail is just not there. Cest la vie. -- Ram-Man21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not feel like any specific subject asserts itself within the photo. I'd prefer to see either more of the animal at large or more detail of a specific part; not an in-between area. ...Would it be too much to ask for a closer photo? :) Decent detail, though. Also: the blacks appear washed out on my screen. --Thisisbossi02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the zookeeper if I could go in the cage and take better photos. Apparently they'd eat me, or so he says. :) -- Ram-Man03:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was shot through glass on a snowy day when myself and another professional photographer were unable to get a great shot of this animal. My wife, who took this picture with her point-and-shoot, managed to capture what was in my biased mind a special shot. The camera wasn't able to capture the subtle detail in the black hairs and the resulting contrast was too low. I darkened the blacks (because there wasn't much detail there and it was a little noisy) to increase the contrast. The original version is still in the file history. -- Ram-Man19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: the closing. I know it makes little difference, but the above votes were at least cast for picture #1 below, if not for both pictures. If the first picture should be closed, then all the votes under "Picture #1" should be counted. As a result, I've updated the count. -- Ram-Man11:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a photoshopped version with better colour, hows that? I missed that Info bit up the top about the version history, woops, having both next to each other still allows for better comparison i guess. Chris huh09:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it? It is fantastic. Just zoom in on that eyeball and may I never get that close to anything that carnivorous. Support edited version. Regards, Ben Aveling12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of the nicest things in Commons:FPC (unlike WP:FPC) is that we can vote for the pure beauty of an image without having to prove its encyclopedic value... Alvesgaspar07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can't really explain it, but I really don't like the angle, for some odd reason it seems very "uncomfortable" to me (I still can't figure out a good way to explain this, I'm very sorry). Maybe it's something about how the top of the eye is covered by the lashes, or the composition. --Pharaoh Hound21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Huh, an image taken with a Leica M8. In any case, while the file size is high on this image, the quality does not appear so high. The image looks to be dithered or is that just some strange effect from the camera itself? Maybe it was upsampled. Or perhaps it's just noise reduction. It almost looks like a scan from some print source. I'm not sure what to do with this one. It look like a very nice B&W portrait, but my evaluation criteria are not helping me on this one. Update: Perhaps it's because I like B&W portraits so much (and the composition) and because of it being of a famous, iconic person. Nevertheless, I'm still torn because of the low quality. -- Ram-Man18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Call me insane, crazy, whatever, but I think the focus on technical quality is ignoring what is really important: the content. The subject matter is exceptional. From the comments below, it seems this image was severely underexposed resulting in lousy quality. Lousy quality didn't, however, mask over the vision which is more important to photography than quality, thus a sufficient mitigating reason to support. -- Ram-Man15:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hi. Photo was taken in person. No it is not a scan. Yes the 6.3MB size is odd and looks like an enlargement. Would it be better to revert to the first, smaller upload? Done. Please see what you think of the 296,750 bytes size. -Susanlesch17:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the mood, intensity of expression and how the subject is separated from the background with shallow DOF. However, I really, really wonder about the quality. With 6+ MP, as the original was, the image should have been razor sharp, easily showing about each and every thread of subjects jacket, each and every hair of beard and pore of the skin. Unfortunately this is nowhere near of what could and should have been. I can only wonder if there has been some kind of major, devastating, post processing failure and if the original could be reprosessed and uploaded? Or was the original simply a radical and upsised crop of larger image (which I do not believe to be the case, considering the shallow DOF)? In its current form it is far too small to be FP. --Thermos17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of the subject matter, and only because of the subject matter. Strongly agree with Thermos et al, would be really good if the above faults can be addressed. Regards, Ben Aveling07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info. Ben, after reading Thermos's evaluation above, yes I did contact the photographer who tried three other versions last night. But his first try above seems to be the best that can be done. The original is very dark, and what we have above is reduced to B&W. I apologize for nominating despite the size and technical failings and appreciate the tough standards you have here. Best wishes. -Susanlesch15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was a good one, and there is no need for an apology. Certain images become icons because they are taken by a certain photographer, or they speak to people in a certain way, or they are of a certain special content, or a combination of these things. The content of this image is FP-worthy and it is clear the despite its technical failings that it has some support anyway. That says something. -- Ram-Man15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack Ram-Man. I would certainly appreciate if this kind of images were nominated more frequently. However, what I said in my post, still stands. If it were about nominations based on thumbnails, this image would have my vote. However, the image should be printable/viewable at larger sizes too, which this image is not. What I would like to suggest, is that you submit the original non-processed image to:
...and ask for some contribution. The French wikipedia should also be able to assist, but due to lack of my language skills, I do not know for sure (I understand that the French lab is the original and very skillful). With more than 6 MP, it should make a stunning image when properly processed.--Thermos20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sorry I didn't chime in before. As Susanlesch says, the problem with this photo was that it was taken in VERY low light and hand-held. The PDP-1 display required a very dark room. It was even too dark to focus very well. I'm not sure why the higher quality image from Flickr didn't come over properly. If you view the largest size from Flickr in a Firefox window and let it resize, the thumbnail created by Firefox is better than the converted jpg thumbnail here. (Larger jpg on Flickr: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/494396202_9193d2f83a_o.jpg ) Also, I have uploaded the M8 RAW as well as several different jpg exports here: http://dav.ito.com/vint/ . I'll try to get more involved in the Commons stuff directly in the future. ;-) Anyway, despite all of the technical issues with this photo, I appreciate your attention to it. Thanks Susanlesch for the nomination. -- Joi08:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this! It's sharp and you can see the rain too. The slightly overexposed highlights are minor, IMO. In case people don't like my edit, consider the original. Perhaps someone with better post-processing skills could process the original and increase contrast while bringing out the detail in the eyes. -- Ram-Man17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh. Because it's "common" understanding that placing the subject in the center is less aesthetically pleasing, aka, The Rule of Thirds. I cropped it to increase the probability that those evaluators who subscribe to that viewpoint would support this image. It's always interesting, in my experience, how many non-photographers think centered pictures look better. You just can't win, really. -- Ram-Man18:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the picture a lot. However, I don't like your attitude. I am an amateur photographer and it pains me to be laughed at when I am trying to learn something. Majorly(hot!)18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand and that's my fault. Text is not the best way to show emotion and tone of voice, and I apologize. I was laughing at the irony. I try hard to tailor the image to the picky crowd that often evaluates these images and then the first person to come along shoots it down. It's a comedy of irony, perhaps only to me. Your way of thinking brings to light the fact that the "Rule of Thirds" isn't always obvious or even the "right" way to think. I myself often compose my pictures in the dead center and as a result will sometimes have difficulty acquiring a FP. Please don't be offended! As for non-photographers, I was referring to those people that I interact with on a daily basis, not those here on the commons. -- Ram-Man19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't believe this. I stumbled across this image earlier today and was going to nominate it myself this evening. I thought it was hilarious. I've added the original to the right, for comparison. Support either. --MichaelMaggs19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the left version. And please make a separate nomination for each picture. That is the normal way here in Commons and it pays in terms of proper closing (unlike the messy system in the en:WP...). Alvesgaspar22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition, and although I'm aware it is not a horizon, the tilt is a little disturbing too. -- Lycaon06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothing special about the image, the composition is quite static and boring. A bird getting so wet can often mean that it dies of exposure during the night, or finds that it can't fly well enough to get to a roost --Benjamint44407:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe bird was fine. Laughing Kookaburras are members of the kingfisher family. While they're not as aquatically oriented as some members of that family, a bit of rain doesn't trouble them. They're actually quite large birds, up to or over 450gm, according to wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's dry enough to fly, I was thinking of small birds when I mentioned exposure, which you do find dead around the place in winter. I was just commenting on the fact that people think a soggy bird is hilarious. Even Kingfishers don't get soggy like that though, penguins don't for that matter, about the only (Australian)birds that will are cormarents and darters which spend most of the day in the sun drying their feathers out again. And Aust isn't even very cold --Benjamint44407:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture, but i dont like the vignetting in the right corners and i would prefer the alternative picture --Simonizer06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not restitch, but performed 1px(!) cosmetics which do not lead to further apparent errors (apart from being retoches of course). Anyway, it's your vote... --Dschwen15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The stitching on this is fine. As for the vignetting, I'd assume that's not vignetting at all but exposure variation in the sky due to the extreme wide angle of view. You can't really fault the picture for reproducing reality. Wow Factor: It's a fun, busy picture. I enjoyed scrolling at 100% looking in between the arches for variability. Geometrically speaking, the other picture is more interesting, but this one has more interesting content. -- Ram-Man17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)****[reply]
Comment Like Ram-Man says, the busy details make it stand above the crowd - in in addition to superrior quality and great composition.--Thermos20:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's very great technically, but projection used resulted in way too unnatural looking picture. In addition to that, sky isn't as smooth as I'd have had expected. Benh21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When the The Gates were in Central Park, they gave certain photographers time to take pictures of iconic locations before the public could intrude. I suspect that it would be possible to arrive on this scene at a time of day when there would be few tourists. You only need one or two people to give the scene a sense of scale. The extra are just clutter. It's also possible to take multiple exposures and combine them to remove people as they move throughout the scene, although that's a photoshopping technique. This is a QI, but the people keep it from being special. -- Ram-Man17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Very nice. The whites appear rather murky, though, if the flower really is white. Could we have a levels-corrected version? --MichaelMaggs10:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, the reproduction of the whites is pretty faithful. See this picture for more context on the plant itself. I'm pretty sure that most of the "murk" is the underlying pink color showing through. Notice how alternating petals are darker than the others? -- Ram-Man11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info The edit expands (brightens) the whites up to 100% of the tonal range. A very small number of pixels in the right two petals were clipped, but this should be invisible. I'm not sure if this edit reproduces reality better or worse than the other edit. -- Ram-Man20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Excellent quality, sharp focus on the centre of the flower. But the subject can hardly breathe with such a tight framing (I remember saying this another time, when was it?...) - Alvesgaspar21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm either going to have to change my style or give up on ever not getting opposed by you. I think I'll probably take the oppose. Sorry, artistic choice! -- Ram-Man23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picture of a leaf. Inspiring. ;-) Of course I'll support, since it's well done. Some might bicker about clipping the leaves, but I like the closeup. What were the chances of two featured picture candidates by two different people of the same species of plant? -- Ram-Man12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support good balance and colour harmony. I like both versions --Simonizer 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Neutral Didnt notice the overblown white in the center before. --Simonizer12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I bet someone with exceptional photoshopping skills could take the center of the first image, place it overtop the second image, and then we could have both the composition and solve the exposure problem. It's the same exact flower, so it wouldn't be changing the nature of the image unethically. -- Ram-Man15:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will be burned by Commons inquisition if you insist on such a proposal, eheheh!! There is a simpler way, which is to use an edit application and a mask to darken the bud. I'll try that, though I'm not good with photoshoping. Alvesgaspar16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darkening it won't help, since you have already clipped the detail. I think that the inquisition will let it through, so long as the photoshopping is declared. -- Ram-Man16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info One of the endpoints of the worlds first electromagnetic telegraph line (connecting the offices of Carl Friedrich Gauß with the offices of Wilhelm Weber).
There is no single correct way to correct for panoramic distortion at extremely wide angles, because it is a 3D projection onto a 2D surface. It's the same problem map-makers face when dealing with large scales. Cylindrical mapping would be great if we had an easy way to view it! -- Ram-Man21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, and given Dschwen used equirectilinear (or something close) mapping, cylindrical mapping doesn't change that much the final result. To me, it has often resulted in similar picture which seems only stretched (a little) vertically. But maybe it won't hurt Dschwen to give it a try... Benh20:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point about cylindrical mapping was that we really can't view it realistically. I was not saying it would be good to apply it to this image. At extreme wide angles you can't correct for all perspective distortion without introducing some other form of distortion. I personally find the distortion in this image ok, but others may not. -- Ram-Man19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the way the shallow DOF is used to separate subject from background. Excellent work with water also. --Thermos17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good work for the death of field, but I think the subject is not separated enough from the background in terms of colors, to be more accurate I may have put the subject on the sky background.--Alipho18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Background is a bit distracting but subject is sharp and comes out nicely in full resolution. Nice spilling water. Alvesgaspar07:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InfoMount McKinley (Denali) on a relatively cloudless day. Taken from inside the Denali National Park.
Support It's an iconic image of one of the most impressive mountains in the world. This image has been published in a local weekly Anchorage newspaper. -- Ram-Man13:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture, but why didn't you wait until the car arrives to the bottom of the picture, it would have given a 'human soul'--Alipho18:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because almost no cars are allowed that far into the park, only the green buses that come by at semi-random intervals and not all of them pass that point. Plus, I was on the bus and only had a few minutes before we had to depart. You can see a small part of a bus in this panorama at the far left. -- Ram-Man18:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's called "Stony Dome", and it's one of the bus stops. It's stereotypical for sure, but cloudless days are relatively rare, so that's what makes this special. Oh and upon closer inspection there is one of those rare cars in this picture. Looks so tiny against a mountain that is miles away. -- Ram-Man12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was taken with a 3MP point-and-shoot. Sorry, no RAW. Of course, since this is snow, it is almost as bright as you're going to get in nature. You can see in this partially underexposed closeup that there is only a very slight amount of additional detail in those highlights, probably only visible because it's an 8MP closeup. The human eye wouldn't have been able to see that kind of detail from that distance anyway. -- Ram-Man13:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the underexposed image with the 1:1 crop from this image. The underexposed image of course looks better because it shows more spatial resolution: it was downsampled from an 8MP camera preserving more detail, whereas the original is just a crop. But most of the tonality in underexposed image is still in the 1:1 crop. You can see all of the major variances in light and dark in both images. You have to look extremely close to see the differenes in tonality that would only be visible at these very large viewing sizes. Had this image been exposed less to pull out that very subtle detail, the entire foreground (which is important) would be mess of noise. It's supposed to look bright: it's snow. -- Ram-Man16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the camera coldn't handle the contrast in the scene. Exposure bracketing could have helped, or reprocessing from raw to save the highlights (helps with my camera). And for the snow I'd prefer a compromise between the two exposures. I said it was a tad overexposed. Anyways I know the chant about blown out snow, believe me, I just feel this pic could have been better. I have a few pics with snow issues here and have been reluctant to nominate them for this reason. --Dschwen09:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a cursory look, the bright snow doesn't overly bother me in any of those pictures. They may or may not be FPs for other reasons (I couldn't say), but speaking for myself, if anything can be overexposed it is snow which has very little detail to begin with. -- Ram-Man11:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is quite nice. The subject is great. But the color quality is very bad! The extrem color noise and the dust. The mountain is too hazy. The last can be fixed but the noise - what a bummer!. Metoc22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noise and dust? Do you mean the foreground? That's not noise, that's the natural color. While there may be a small amount of noise visible at extreme magnifications, this picture was taken in the "late fall" (effective seasons, not calendar... some of the first snows were while we were there in august). I have some closeups of the flora from the 8MP camera, and if you really want me to upload them, I can, but even magnified it looks much the same. The low blueberry bushes and willows are all mixed colors of red, green, and yellow. Perhaps you can't appreciate how much area this picture is covering, but it's impossible for any camera to resolve color that changes by the centimeter or less on a scale this large. As for the mountain, this was as clear a day as possible. The mountain is many miles/kilometers away and is remarkably clear. I'd ask that you reconsider your vote! -- Ram-Man23:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not perfect (more DoF would be nice) and I can't tell if the shiny back is due to sharpening or if it is natural, but I like it anyway regardless. -- Ram-Man20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could one of our photoshop experts re-create the chopped-off corners of the pages? That would hugely improve the image, and it shouldn't be too hard to do. --MichaelMaggs12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you'd have to add at least 100px to the right to fit the middle sheet in, then you'd have to clone a 100px strip of the table surface, with rather intricate criss-cross and lighting patterns. It might be doable with enough patience, but it's certainly not as easy as it looks. ~ trialsanderrors08:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Technically a good picture but I would like to see the butterflies in a different angle, showing their full wings. --Alipho18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be rather difficult (that is, almost impossible) since the male's wings are almost perpendicular to the female's wings! See this image from an angle showing the female's wings more clearly at the expense of the male's wings and fuzzy backside. This image has a good balance of both. -- Ram-Man18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I prefer this composition, though the background is a bit distracting (but that pinky mass could be edited). I didn't know the butterflies read the Kamasutra... - Alvesgaspar15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing that pink block is outside my photoshopping skills. Someone else with more skill would have to do it. -- Ram-Man12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeap, I support the idea that Alvesgaspar buys a DSLR. You have some great images, but and some of them didn't got featured because of quality issues which would be solved by a DSLR camera. --Atoma10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is my current desktop background and I love the framing and field of view. It looks plenty sharp on my monitor. I probably wouldn't support a crop. -- Ram-Man05:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but with the recent trend of high quality macro shots, this doesn't cut it. As it is, it doesn't really illustrate anything since the bee is too small, and the flower is cut off. --Fir0002www07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's a reasonable size, and you could do a crop and still sneak in above the 2Mpx limit. I think that would help. --MichaelMaggs12:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but the lighter orange tips of the petals provide much needed depth perception and color variation. The crop just seems flat to me. If your goal is a closeup of a bee, there are much better images, like this FP. Any crop would have to include the upper right hand corner of the original, at least to add some variation (possibly not enough?). This image also has a more "centered" look. -- Ram-Man14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Evening sea at Porto Covo, Portugal. Please forgive my insistence on minimalist seasights, but that is really the type of photography I prefer. Also note that this is not a sunset... Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNeutral I liked this as a QI, but I'm not sure it has enough of both "wow factor" and technical quality. -- Ram-Man06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change to support if you can convince my why it has sufficient encyclopedic value over various other shots like this. -- Ram-Man23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my own mind. This shows crashing waves and the rocks along the coast, which is encyclopedic. Also, the extreme variation in lighting causes the overexposure, but I'd rather not have a shot later in the day which would further darken the foreground. I'd also not like an overcast day which would improve the foreground colors but the sky would look terrible. Maybe a backlit sky with a bright blue background would be better, but I'm not so sure about that. -- Ram-Man16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, trees don't grow making a 10 degree's angle with the vertical (as well as people...). How can we be sure they are coming down the mountain? This part of the ground seems to be more or less leveled. That is confirmed by the presence of the stream and the body atitude of the first man. Alvesgaspar08:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benjamint444. Also, it would be better if it were sharper. I think this picture is not as good as some of your other stuff, for eg, Image:HuiHangGuDao2.JPG. But the problem with that one is that it is too small. If you had a version of that with more detail, I think it would make a good FP. It has a wow factor that this photo doesn't. Regards, Ben Aveling11:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Benjamint444, it's tilted (or there is a strange gravity anomaly over there). This said, I'm no photograph expert but this picture seems "flat" to me, lacking of contrast, or depth, or sharpness, or something else. — Xavier, 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive thin arch, good picture. I'm planning to go in Utah in July and your gallery is one of my favorites. --LucaG09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Dschwen. To be a FP of an "easy" object, it has to stand out above the rest. This image is borderline due to the "mushy" trees anyway. -- Ram-Man04:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info this is a snapshot, not a candidate for Quality Picture MFbay 22 May 2007
Neutral An extraordinary shot, I love that tongue hanging out. Other factors might be overlooked, but alas, the focus and DOF aren't quite there (too much movement). Knowing the difficulties I haven't got the heart to vote against it :-) (try again, and again, and again ...) --Tony Wills23:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is good, the statue represente a very strong subject (a very good illustration for several articles about the war), but the picture for me is not that strong. Somewhere I prefer the detailled one : Image:WW1 Prospect Park Detail.jpg. But even this one would have been a lot stronger in black and White.Romary11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Stefan-Xp - uploaded by Stefan-Xp - nominated by The same guy
Oppose The scene is ok but th e contrast is way too high due to the time of day the picture was taken. Oh, and the nominator has not voted in support of this image and should do so explicitly. -- Ram-Man11:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the File from a RAW-File, during doing so, I increased the contrast and sharpness... And I dindn't support my own picture, because I think its a bit too selfconfident ;) --Stefan-Xp05:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't support your own picture, that's one less support vote. It's not a bad idea to have that. If an image had 4 support votes, it would fail because not enough votes were cast, even if it hit the support/oppose ratio. -- Ram-Man12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Ram-Man on contrast. As for the nominator not supporting his own picture, he is probably doing what I do, waiting until a couple of people have voted. --Digon301:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the distracting, unfocused plant by its neck. It is a great picture though, I don't know why anyone else isn't voting. --Digon318:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of pictures are not being voted on, and I can't figure out why. A picture at least deserves an up-down vote, but many of my images barely have a quorum, if at all. As for this image, I wasn't voting because I was on the fence. I try to take picture of large water fowl (egrets, heron, etc.) like this and they are often very skittish making them hard to capture, so I wasn't sure if that was a mitigating reason for the foreground, since the bird itself is so good. Had I taken this, I'd be proud that I got the bird so clear and sharp and detailed, but I'd be disappointed with the foreground. It would make me want to try again. I'm still not totally convinced and could swing my vote later if my mood changes. -- Ram-Man19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sometimes I don't vote because I don't like a picture enough to put my support behind it, but I don't dislike it enough to want to explain why, especially if the vote isn't close. This is one of those cases. :-) I guess that's a weak sort of oppose. Regards, Ben Aveling22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Another simple seasight, with the evening sun's light reflecting in the schist cliff. Yes, I also have seen it a thousand times but it is still beautiful, that's why I insist... Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar - --Alvesgaspar15:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the cliff and the cost is nice. Especially the lighting of the lefthand cliff. But the mainpart of the image is a grey and dusty sky -- not so good. Metoc15:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You have so many pictures from Porto Covo, I don't think this is your best one. The sky is not terribly detailed (although it isn't blown out). For maximum educational value I'd like to see some crashing waves. Perhaps if the image was taken a little lower with less sky. -- Ram-Man16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, all the beauty is in the simple things stuff aside, this is way over the line for me. Neither does it do a good job illustrating external steps (context is missing completely) nor does it illustrate wide-angle distortion (it would need an easily recognizable subject, like a face up-close where the distortion is apparent). Please don't take this personal but the pic does not wow me at all. With the rationale in the nomination just about any semi-artsy wideangle snapshot should become FP. --Dschwen14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't illustrate wide-angle distortion well? The distortion is how the steps at the bottom appear to "tip forward" compared to the steps at the top which seem to be facing the camera. This is a perfect example of such distortion because it is uses simple geometric shapes (lines and rectangles) instead of something organic or other more complicated subject matter. The steps appear to bend a full 90 degrees from top to bottom (you can't see the top of the step at the top but you can see the side, and you can't see the side of the step at the bottom but you can see the top). Had this shot been taken to include more of the surroundings, it wouldn't have been the same angle and/or field of view and thus wouldn't have shown the distortion that this image shows. The human eye cannot see things from this perspective. I agree that it's not the best example of external steps, but it's also not being used to illustrate them (although it could be). The distortion that makes it a good example of a wide angle of view also make it look unnatural as a normal example because of the human eye limitation. I certainly don't take it personally, as I realize that range of possible subject matter for a featured picture is extremely small and I'm just trying out new areas. This nom is yet another attempt to take a break from my potentially dozens of flower and animal photo nominations. But I still completely disagree with your assessment: it's educational, artsy (The "Wow Factor" is about subjective, artistic evaluation), and strong technically. -- Ram-Man14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry too, but I have to agree with Dschwen. If it had been concrete or modern wooden stairs, e.g., then the perspective argument might cut. In this case, with the nature stone slabs, I've seen old stairs that do just that: tilt and bend. There are some at the Zimbabwe Ruins if I remember correctly. Lycaon15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposing because there exists some stairs that might really bend like that? 99.9% of stairs do not bend at 90 degrees, so I can't imagine why people would be confused. A simple image caption would make it perfectly clear. I find it hard to believe that my argument doesn't work because a very small minority of stairs may look like this to the human eye. Besides, your argument doesn't work either: If they were real, the relative size of the each step would be similar, as opposed to this wide angle image where the nearby steps are dramatically larger looking than the ones on the top. Also, you can clearly tell that the steps are not separating as they would if it were the deteriorating steps that you mention. These are obviously in good shape. If we have two flowers, one real and one silk, we wouldn't reject the real one because a plastic one might look very similar. I've seen photographs of glass flowers that I'd swear were the real thing. -- Ram-Man16:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Derek, if an image needs lengthy defence or explanations then it's likely it doesn't have the necessary wow factor to be a good candidate FP. --MichaelMaggs17:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong: Except for one line of Dschwen's objection, the argument was that the distortion was not illustrative (useful/encyclopedic) enough, which has nothing to do with the wow factor. Lycaon mentioned that my technical argument was invalid for that same reason. I still maintain that it is useful and encyclopedic. I don't have a problem if people think it lacks a wow factor, but I do have a problem with opposition for the other technical reasons. If they really don't think it has a wow factor, they should say so. -- Ram-Man17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly no wow factor. And as for illustrating distortion etc, Dschwen is precisely right, we don't know what these steps are meant to look like, are all the slabs the same size & square, fitted at right angles? I can certainly visualise stone steps that I've seen that start off straight at the top, but then fan out towards the bottom. To illustrate distortion you either need something universally familiar or juxtapose an undistorted view next to it. --Tony Wills13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I took another image with a normal (50mm) focal length and created a composite image showing both images, would that really be an FP candidate? Or would it be better to show two separate images in an article showing (a) and (b)? I don't have access to the wide angle lens to reproduce this shot, but I can certainly do a normal one. -- Ram-Man15:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNeutral for now. It's very large, very colorful, but can someone explain to me how it is encyclopedic and valuable? -- Ram-Man06:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a temporary jpeg version to be used until the thumbnail problem is resolved. If this is promoted to a featured picture, the .png file should be used instead. I've changed to support now that I know what this represents. -- Ram-Man16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just see a grey box with the following text in it: “Fehler beim Erstellen des Vorschaubildes: Ungültige Thumbnail-Parameter” (error when creating thumbnail). Perhaps image is too large for the mediawiki software? --norro11:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I followed this link to the full resolution image and avoided the messed up thumbnail. I don't know enough about the wikimedia software to explain the thumbnail problem. -- Ram-Man12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a high definition file (5600x5600 px) but the server seems to be unable to create the thumbnail. I don't know what to do ... Anyone knows ? And about the encyclopedic issue, it's about roots of a polynom (if i've understood well), you can see this article en:Newton's method for more information -- Florentriv13:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I used the C source that is given on the description of the image to calculate the high resolution image (5600x5600 px), and it took around 4 minutes. My processor is a AMD Athlon 64 2800+ (1.8 ghz, single core, 3 years old), a good processor but not a all-new one. -- Florentriv19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just doesn't do it for me. Too much 'flat' space and the complexity that is there, doesn't leap out at me. Regards, Ben Aveling22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are thousands of fractals out there (and hundreds on commons), this do not seem that extra spectacular to be a FP. /Daniel7820:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalOpposeNeutral I don't like how part of the ant is cut off, although it's very sharp. (Oh, and you didn't vote for your own image!) -- Ram-Man05:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some situations its not neccessary to see the whole body. The importance of this picture is the detail on a magnification of 5x (on the edge) on a living insect in motion and another good example of camouflage which makes it very interesting in my eyes. You cannot see that often. Like all insect pictures its hard to find support, except its a cute one. At most Flower Pictures (like yours above) you dont see the trunk coming from the ground ... and here you can see the head and the upper torso --Makro Freak09:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a beautiful insect photo, cuteness doesn't matter here. A simple vertical orientation and slight shift of the camera could have included the entire body of the ant without any (or minimal) loss in magnification. These compositional issues are the job of the photographer alone. Since you brought up my images, many have received oppose votes for framing issues like this. It's my fault as the photographer that I tightly framed this butterfly image, resulting in its possible failure to acheive FP status. While I personally won't oppose on that basis alone as others do, I don't like to just ignore it either. Still a useful image! -- Ram-Man12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to a conditional oppose since this is not identified and thus not useful enough to be encyclopedic. If it is properly identified, I'll change my vote back to neutral. -- Ram-Man05:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that we cannot see the whole ant is not a problem for me, we can see very clearly the head. Romary10:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC) PS : Is it possible to have more info about the camera, the objective used?[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but I don't like the cropped body of the ant. Also, the unfocused white mass in the foreground is distracting. Alvesgaspar19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Between the crop, and the fact much of what we can see of the ant is out of focus, I can't quite support this one. If it were just one or the other, if even the whole head were in focus, I'd have supported. Sorry, Ben Aveling22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint44410:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) This is a completely different image than the original, I re-stitched and edited it from scratch. In this version the stitching is completely flawless and I have made several other improvments, on the original image large parts of the males face were blue blown and there was some fringing on the face of the male - I have rectified both of those things along with it being a neater and cleaner image than the old one regarding the unfeathered lines of filtering running across the birds (I don't think anyone noticed that last time), the BG is better and the whole image is crisper (although I haven't sharpened it) and slightly warmer.[reply]
Oppose Because I don't like the colours tones (the left bird has really weird blues) and find the lighting flat (flash again ?). I also strongly oppose image manipulations which change the subject too much as it's the case here. It's like I put an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty. I would probably be a good looking picture, but it would make no sense. Benh21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point of view about "It's like I put an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty." but an Eiffel Tower next to a Statue of Liberty is impossible whereas it's quite possible for these birds to perch together. The color is real, the only thing I have done is an Apply image adjustment layer and stroked in some red contrast to bring it back from being blue blown, that doesn't change the colour and the detail is real.--Benjamint44423:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right, the images I found on the net show the same "odd" blue. As for the manipulation thing, my exemple was a rather extreme one, but let's take one more appropriate : what about if I stick a en:George_W._Bush shaking a hand next to a en:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad shaking a hand and photoshop them a bit so they shake each others hand ? Wouldn't be impossible, but very unlikely to happen. Sometimes, a picture is great because of the "instant" it catches. Here we know this instant is "fake", which take away a lot of its charm. Benh15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a beatiful picture and would certainly qualify if it were a single shot. But I also feel that this kind of manipulation shouln't be encouraged in nature pictures. Is really possible, or common, for these birds to perch together? Probably yes but we really don't know until someone gets a straight photo of it. Alvesgaspar12:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly because of the manipulation. I have no objection in principle, as it's been disclosed, but because it's very easy to conjoin images in this way it makes it harder - much harder - to show that such an image is really the best that Commons has to offer. Individual bird images are more likely to be successful here. But I'm not happy with the frontal flash, anyway. Did you buy that angle-backet that I suggested for the flash gun, by the way? :) --MichaelMaggs15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, I have done some research about them though, I want to get a new flash soon anyway so I'll wait and make sure they're compatable. --Benjamint44410:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This composition follows the long standing tradition and practice of bird illustrators eg Category:NAUMANN or Category:The_Birds_of_America in putting together birds into one frame for illustrative purposes. The difference is one of quality, this has a high degree of photo realism, something not achievable by those illustrators of old.
The image is now clearly described as being a composite, there is no excuse for people mis-using it or being confused about it. If commons accepts composite images, edited videos, and edited or multi-tracked sound files then this image must be accepted as valid, and assessed on its qualities.
FP highlights quality images with a bit of 'wow', there is no requirement that they be photographs straight from a camera (Merges from focus bracketed images which show otherwise unobtainable DOF, are accepted as FP. Stitched panoramas are accepted that show otherwise unobtainable resolution. Composite images are accepted/opposed that show otherwise unobtainable composition?)
I should add that I don't particularly like composite images, but can't justify opposing this on quality or 'wow' factor appeal. Perhaps FP just needs a category along side 'non photographic' and 'animated' images, for 'composite' images. --Tony Wills11:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Nice composition. I regret the original pictures are not clearly cited in the image description. I guess the left bird comes from a wider version of Image:Superb_blue_Wren1.jpg but where does the right bird come from? Moreover, if the image is the composition of two pictures, what is the exact meaning of the EXIF metadata ? Finally, the resolution does not meet the 2 Mpixel requirement. — Xavier, 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I agree with Tony Wills (amazing that I would even consider that, considering my stated bias against manipulated images), this image is below the resolution guidelines and there are no mitigating reason stated. -- Ram-Man05:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is in the ball park of the guidelines, the file is 4 times bigger and the image sharper than the original nomination. --Tony Wills11:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: rather blurred and it's unclear what the image is intended to illustrate. The background is also distracting. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs11:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Oppose Good in many respects, but I really can't see anything interesting in an unopened flower! Sorry, but to me it's presenting an inherently pretty subject in a somewhat ugly way. --Fir0002www07:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral An unopened flower certainly can have exquisite beauty, and this is close. But I find the similar coloured background annoying, and the tip of the bud isn't sharply focused (where the eye is drawn too). So I'll sit on the fence :-) --Tony Wills11:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the location and yes, the color balance is a little off. The green right below the purple should be more yellow-green (to my eyes). I'll fix it and upload another version later.
Support Again a very original subject to me. We must not be living on the same planet (or I don't go out/travel/look around me enough ?) I'd have centered the subject a little bit more though. Benh12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a native plant of the northeastern United States on a private estate that specializes in maintaining the natives species, sometimes ones that are very rare. I go out a lot on weekends to shoot plant photos for Wikipedia from various botanical gardens. The species are all identified on site, so it limits/eliminates the original research and increases credibility. -- Ram-Man12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is not native sensu strictu, though, as it is a patented hybrid (see below). This doesn't diminish the beauty or value of this picture of course... -- Lycaon07:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aha found it myself: US Patent n°PP11051 says about Tiarella 'Cygnet': "The present invention relates to a new and distinct hybrid of Tiarella which originated as a cross-pollination of Tiarella cordifolia 'Dunvegan' and a selected seedling of Tiarella wherryi in the Saxifrage family, both unpatented cultivars.". Lycaon00:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - A beatiful composition and a sharp and detailed image. Unfortunately, the right part of the background spoils what I belive might be a perfect shot. Alvesgaspar09:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the noise in the image, it makes the image look less sharp. The sky is bland and noisy too. -- Ram-Man05:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very typical but impressing. Its noisy but sharp - so everything's allright. Nice tones. The second version is less of contrast Metoc23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry to oppose for a photo I like, the composition and colours are just great, but the image is very unsharp. Look at the bushes at the lower-right corner, they are so unsharp that they seem blurry. (Would that be because of the Canon 300D standard lens ?) The sky degradé isn't very smooth either (Iso 800). --Atoma10:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry to oppose for a photo I like, the composition and colours are just great, but the image is very unsharp. Look at the bushes at the lower-right corner, they are so unsharp that they seem blurry. (Would that be because of the Canon 300D standard lens ?) The sky degradé isn't very smooth either (Iso 800). --Atoma10:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is an incredible shot in technical quality, beauty and value. But the author appears to be quite modest. I hope that other macro photos will follow. Created and uploaded by Makro Freak|, nominated by Alvesgaspar --Alvesgaspar20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the right part of the abdomens is blured (unless it is a measure to protect minors?) — Xavier, 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately this picture should have been taken perpendicular to the long end of the bug's body so the DoF would cover the whole body. -- Ram-Man05:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is a great and amazing shot but I think DOF is to shallow (most of the subject is blurred) and I don't like it being on a jean. Benh22:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that we are not only looking for encyclopedic content here: we are not Wikipedia. For me, the gold thread in the fabric beautifully picks up the colour of the insect itself. It's wonderful and artistic shot. --MichaelMaggs16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bright colors and amazing details. Vassil 17 Mai 2007
I would recommend to change only the image description for now and change the file name after this vote. You can do this by uploading a copy of this image with the proper filename and tagging this image here with template {{badname}}. I hope Lycaon is okay with this proceeding. --norro08:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'll support only when it is properly identified, otherwise it isn't useful enough to be a FP (ack Lycaon). -- Ram-Man04:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't begin to understand this comment. Look at the leaf on the left, it's top tip is behind the flower and its bottom tip is in front of the flower. The entire leaf is in focus, thus the flower is also in focus. What you are seeing is probably diffraction effects from the extremely small aperture (approximately equivalent to f/28 on a 35mm film camera) descreasing the effective spatial resolution, but unless our standards now require downsampling from a point-and-shoot camera, this shouldn't be an issue. Since the actual resolution of this image is probably around 4MP, I'll downsample it to that point if you'd be willing to change your vote. Otherwise, why bother? As for the colors, that's just nonsense. This is what the flower looked like. Compare it to this image of the same flower from a different camera. -- Ram-Man20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it was taken in an outdoor pond. All these assumptions :) Look for the "Pond Garden" here. I've also added geocoding. -- Ram-Man01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The lack of success of this image has much to do with the delicate colours of the flower and we can't blame the photographer for it. Maybe with a little more green ... ;-) - Alvesgaspar11:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of success with only two votes? Seems like lack of opinion to me. In any case, I'm not sure what you mean about the colors. Do people honestly have a problem with how this flower looks? I don't understand that at all. The colors are very beautiful. -- Ram-Man17:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralSupport I do like the colours, and the POV. But the tight framing (just) prevents me from supporting. What the heck, it's good enough for FP Lycaon22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I suppose there is no chance that we could get another 2 oppose votes or a single support vote to reach a quorum here? Why exactly are these pictures being ignored? They deserve a full vote. -- Ram-Man03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I almost didn't vote because I didn't quite know whether to support or oppose. It was very hard for me to judge this photo and probably hard for other people too. --Digon316:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not to pile on, but just to make some suggestions. The fence is distracting, it either should have been in or out of the photo, but not half in and half out. The roof line gets lost in the light. The photo appears to have been taken with the camera pointing up to fit the whole church in? The problem with doing that is that it makes the left side of the church appear to lean right, and the right side appears to lean left. And there's something happening in the door of the church, but it's hard to see what because of the light. Lastly, the shadow on half of the roof and front of the church is unfortunate, it makes part of it too dark, while leaving part of it too light. Regards, Ben Aveling11:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC). PS. Some of your own contributions look nice, but they would be much more useful if you put them in categories. Otherwise no-one will ever find them, even if they go looking for them.[reply]
[This is not a criticism it is just a comment]: I suppose you would prefer Alexander Pope to e.e. cummings, too. I think this photo is far better than the image above or below it... But, that is just my opinion. Charlessauer00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Perspective. If all images are corrected to have parallel and perpendicular lines, they start to have a medieval appearance. I like a little perspective.Charlessauer00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Not all photographs are taken at noon on a safari. Some photographs are taken at dusk, dawn, or at night. Correcting the lighting to make it look like it was taken at a different time takes some of the appeal away. The high contrast in this picture is appealing. It emphasizes the building's structure. Charlessauer00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose This image is good, but just not quite good enough for a FP. The fence issue is important and I don't like how the left tree obscures the roof. I think if this image was taken a bit farther to the right and either closer or farther away it would have been better. I think the lighting is fine. -- Ram-Man04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yep, the border should be removed. But even then I find the composition a bit random (cut people) and the image quality is not stellar. All adds up to oppose (without border a weak oppose). --Dschwen19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first sight a nice picture of typical architecture! But: awful border (although not essential for criticizing), cut people, not very sharp, name 'Martius' added on awning (why?)... -- MJJR20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Javier ME 09:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Image had been Flickrreviewed, but it seems it has been deleted since. I've left a message to the original FLickr photographer. Maybe I could get a better cropped version and fix the sign. Anyway it wouldnt be sharper --Javier ME09:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaled a modified version: I used Photoshop to suppress the "ghost" in the middle and some rubbishs.Perhaps it's less disturbing to see a garbage can than a ghost :-) I hope that the way I modified the description is correct.Vassil 12:27, 19 May 2007
Support Very nice image. There are though some relatively numerous 8x8px squares on the sky due to JPEG compression. --Atoma18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
they don't exist in the original image, maybe vassil can provide a version with less compression? -- Gorgo13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right,I'm doing another version. Vassil 28 May 2007
Neutral A very stereotypical composition - I feel I've seen it before even though I haven't. And could be larger. So I won't support it. But it's perfectly clear and sharp, and nothing wrong with the composition. And nothing quite like it is featured yet, as far as I can see at a glance. It is a very different shot to Image:Giraffe08 - melbourne zoo.jpg, and probably a better one. So lots of reasons not to oppose either. Regards, Ben Aveling22:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the foreground grass is slightly distracting, but I didn't even notice it for a while, so that means it's not important. I don't know if this is an image crop or downsampled, but I'd like it larger (ack Ben Aveling). -- Ram-Man04:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info The right one (head left) won! After 12 minutes (8:36 - 8:48 am) of vigorous neck blows, the left one abandoned apparently not wounded. During the match a female (I guess) was observing behind a tree. --LucaG20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question According to metadata, this was taken with a camera capable of 6.3megapixel and it's been photoshopped since. Was it downsampled or cropped? Regards, Ben Aveling12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's a downsampled image not cropped. I know that you and Ram-Man would prefer a larger composition but when I was in the field with camera on tripod I took the necessary time to frame the shot as I like: as close as possible. Sometimes I prefer close-ups of animals like this Rhinoceros or even this Pelican. Less encyclopedic but more stirring shots IMHO --LucaG15:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, still nice and sharp and it allows one to get just a little 'closer' to the animals. Why not upload that one instead of this one? Regards, Ben Aveling22:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I prefer not to share full res pictures because of the impossibility to license on Commons as for non commercial use. Actually for this old picture I could do it but I really don't see the benefit for the project. --LucaG20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good for an astronomy pic without the aid of specialist equipment, and I see there is only one featured pic of a comet. But too noisy for FP. --Tony Wills10:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm temporarily changing to neutral to give myself more time to consider the philsophical issues surrounding my opposition. -- Ram-Man23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong supportSupport LOVE . . .Framing ? No its a Icon. Maybe a little bit more space on the upper side ? . A precious for Wikimedia, compared with all the other pictures encamping in the archives. Fir0002 is a real (good equiped) master in macro-photography. --Makro Freak19:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralI'm temporarily changing to neutral to give myself more time to consider the philsophical issues surrounding my opposition. -- Ram-Man23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still among commons' best at the given size? Sorry, last year maybe. But today it doesn't cut it for me. --Dschwen15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is not correcting old "mistakes" an excuse to make new ones? The standards change, that's just how it is. I agree old FPs should be reevaluated according to the new quality standards, the best pictures on commons clearly is not a static set. --Dschwen16:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one image nominated for delisting didn't reach a decision because of a lack of votes. Is there a consensus about the reasons and criteria for delisting? --Tony Wills06:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One reason may be that users don't have the delisting page Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal on their watchlist. Anyone who doesn't will probably miss the delistings as they otherwise appear right at the bottom of the FP candidates page. Who bothers to scroll right down to the bottom each time? --MichaelMaggs10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support At last! A flying insect, found in the sea of poser-insect images, where protagonists are glued to the leaves. Ziga09:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after a lot of thought into the matter. This image is below the resolution guidelines for a FP. There are no stated mitigating reasons. I'm sorry, your images are among the best we have, but the philosophy is not. I'll change my vote if the guidelines are changed to allow this image. -- Ram-Man04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines do 'allow' any image, we must judge them on their merits, the size guideline is just that - a guide to help us judge. We are here to judge the image only, I can not vote against the image just because I don't agree the the authors philosophy. --Tony Wills09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. The core goals of the commons should take precedent over anything else. Both the four freedoms and the project scope based on those freedoms are fundamental to the project. This proces, however, is not fundamental. Thus the guidelines are just guidelines, but the core principles of the commons are not. That said, I do want to take some more time to consider this issue, so I'm changing to Neutral for now. I don't want to rashly turn down good images if there is not a very good reason for it, but at the moment I think there is a good reason. -- Ram-Man23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I've changed back to oppose. I understand that opposing based on project scope can scare off new people from the project and thus for the future I have to be very careful when using this argument. So it may seem unfair or whatever, but Fir0002 has been with this project for a long time and understands why I am opposing. I respect his right to his view and appreciate the difficulty that he faces. However, I must stick true to what I believe is important to the Commons: that the philosophical goals of the project are more important than the pragmatic goals. Someone who intentionally downsamples their images, even as high quality as Fir0002 does, does not match with the project's scope and the four freedoms, specifically not restricting use. To his credit, he freely admits that he is restricting use, and I respect that openness, which is why this isn't personal. It's very legalistic and inconsistent to not oppose all images that are downsampled in this manner, but for now I'll stick with those below 2MP, so as not to anger everyone who disagrees with me. -- Ram-Man19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look at the eye detail. Clearly amongst the best images on commons. Its quality mitigates against its low resolution. --Tony Wills 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC
Oppose - Sorry but I don't agree on the quality. Colours are nice but detail is missing and image is somehow blurry, probably due to high jpeg compression. Alvesgaspar11:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, largely blown feathers, lacking image quality, unpleasant composition (neither portrait nor full body), and.. ..yes.. ..permit me not to like this background either. --Dschwen18:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose despite the >2MP resolution, the image quality is poor. Not up to current FP standards for domestic animal shots. -- Ram-Man00:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compared by your art to enlighten the beauty of flowers, this one doesnt convince me, sorry. But a very interesting bird, indeed. --Makro Freak15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why this not for FP? Nice light, nice composition, excellent technical quality, usefull for Wiki projects... -- MJJR19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the composition is good enough for a FP, but I don't care for the quality in the shadow detail of the tree, but it's not so bad as to oppose. I don't know what bothers me about this picture. Of course I rarely agree with Karelj that these types of pictures are boring or shouldn't be featured pictures. -- Ram-Man00:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely green color, but I feel it lacks something to be a FP to me. Background is a bit overexposed and bleak. /Daniel7818:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This rejection comes as a complete surprise. I found the light and the tones of green so beautiful that I rushed back home to prepare the picture and share it with you. - Alvesgaspar23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Join the club. Sometimes I just nominate a picture that I'm sure will at least get 40% or 50% support and it gets overwhelming opposition. I say just keep trying: eventually you'll get one that people like. As for this picture, a little better quality and I would have supported. -- Ram-Man00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It made me stop an look, and go read the wikipedia page. I found it hard to understand what the second image was showing, now I realise the roads are masked by the sea of mud, and those dimples are the craters from 1 million artillery shells per square mile. Certainly a high value picture, the world needs reminding of the stupidity of war - 750000 people died here in 'the war to end all wars' --Tony Wills07:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support probably this image won't be featured because of low res, anyway, I add my vote due to its great historical value. Ziga09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is a digitized (scanned) version of an analog photograph, there is no mitigation for the abysmal resolution, historical value (of which I am convinced, btw) notwithstanding. Lycaon11:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think it might be a scan from the book "Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front" by Richard Holmes. Does anyone know if photos are available directly from the Imperial War Museum? --Tony Wills12:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info They've got it online, but it's not clear how to get a soft copy of it. See [4] (I hope that link works, if not, go to [5] and search for image Q 42918A.) Regards, Ben Aveling13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with lyacon, this is probably a bad scan from a book. Scanning this with a better scanner would probably already result in a better image. -- Gorgo13:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I live in this area. Passendale (or Passchendaele as it was called during the First World War) was only one of the many towns that were completely destroyed during the battles round Ypres. The entire area, for miles and miles, was completely destroyed. The woods, the farms, the little rivers, ... absolutely everything, there was no tree left alive. This image gives the impression that only the buildings of the towns were destroyed. In the entrance hall of Tyne Cot cemetery where some soldiers who died during this battle are buried, a mosaic of multiple areal photographs is shown, of which this is only one (a big "collage" that show the situation before and after the battle, a few months and more than half a million deaths later). I'd appreciate it very much if someone would find that hi-res mosaic, which shows that the destruction was on a far larger scale than shown on this image. That mosaic would show the situation better than this one. When you look at that mosaic, tears start rolling every time. Tbc17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Historical value is of course immense, and the world needs indeed to be reminded again and again of the stupidity of all wars (and the stupidity of people promoting wars...). But this does not compensate the very poor technical quality of these pictures, which are definitely not FP. -- MJJR20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality of this picture is not measured in dots per inch. Sometimes you don't need a million pixels to have an emotional impact. Would a higher resolution version have more impact? I suspect not. But the point is moot, we don't have a technically perfect version, there is no technically perfect version of this photo. We aren't voting on photos we'd like to have if they existed. We are simply deciding, as is, where is, is this one of our most important images? Not prettiest, not most technically excellent, just most valuable. I will order a hardcopy and if a better quality scan is possible, I will do it. But it will not have a million pixels. If that is your measure of quality, then vote No now. If this picture, as is, doesn't touch you, then vote No. Otherwise, vote Yes. Regards, Ben Aveling22:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, no, this image is weaker. But emotionally? I don't want to get into comparisons, but for me, the Passchendale images hit harder. I'm not sure if a logical explaination of an emotion is useful, or even possible. This is emotional. There's no absolute scientific formulae to calculate the worth of a picture. Suffice to say that it moves me. Regards, Ben Aveling04:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring only to the technical quality and using the previous FP as a benchmark. Judging emotional appeal is near impossible, as you say. -- Ram-Man14:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the Imperial War Museum (London) they have lots of glass negatives of such striking pictures from WWI, which can perfectly be scanned according to modern digital standards -- MJJR19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I've ordered a copy of the image. I'll be renominate when I know what I can get out of a scan of it. Regards, Ben Aveling13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another perfect composition by our master on the subject. I'm still thinking if composition (and good colouring) is enough to make a FP... - Alvesgaspar22:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI'd have to question its usefulness and it lacks a wow factor. To be an FP, an easy to take scene must be exceptional. -- Ram-Man01:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like that kind of nice and pleasant (and technically excellent) pictures! As says LucaG: it's relaxing. But I'm afraid it's just not extraordinary enough for a FP. -- MJJR20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATED: Yeah, fringing is usually possible to remove, at least partially. It wouldn't change my neutral vote. Someone else may be able to fix it for you if there are any opposers that you'd like to try to convince to support. I'm not sure I can do the technical work myself. -- Ram-Man13:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used with success Ulead Photoimpact, there's a function in the menu called "Color aberration" or so which does it pretty well on several fringing colors (depends on the lens, usually green, pink, violet). --Atoma14:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is nice but average. The colors and light is boring. The dust is a problem to this image. Also the subject is not enough shaped out. Metoc
SupportNeutral Composition is good: Reflections, flowers, nice sky, and its asymetrical. But is it used in any articles? A featured picture should be useful and encyclopedic. -- Ram-Man01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, a featured picture should be used in at least one article or at least be useful enough. I wasn't sure if it was. I expected someone to tell me why. Now that it is in an article, I've changed to support. -- Ram-Man13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Een Westvlaamse FP! (@Ram-Man: a featured picture doesn't have to be used in article, it just has to have that potential.) -- Lycaon07:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background isn't distracting at all. The foreground blurry leaf is the only weakness, but considering that the DoF is already at basically a maximum, I can let one minor issue slide. It's very sharp. -- Ram-Man01:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info more sophisticated version uploadet, less grainy, hornet bigger --MFbay 21 May 2007
Support - Because of excellent quality and value, and despite the distracting background (a gaussian blur might help) and foreground. - Alvesgaspar07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Will support if someone can do a guassian blur on the background. This is a good enough image for that to be worth the effort. --MichaelMaggs10:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info Improved version uploadet - backround heavy blurred and darker, foreground little blurred and significant darker - any further wishes or suggestions? --MFbay 24 May 2007
Support but with so many versions I don't know what those above have voted for, nor what they will think of this version. --MichaelMaggs17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Makro Freak18:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)The beauty of tiny things! This icon shows multiple Blossoms of the Euphorbia cyparissias plant. The whole composition is 1 square inch in size. If you like to compare the size, just have a look here. I hope you enjoy this journey into Microcosm.[reply]
Neutral - I'm not sure (that may change). It is an unusual and beatiful flower but the quality seems a little short: lack of detail and some noise. Alvesgaspar22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the detail is hard to make out, the highlights are not clipping. A curves adjustment to increase contrast in the highlights would bring out the detail some more. -- Ram-Man12:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a very beautiful picture,I really like the composition,the "black and white" effect and the atmosphere,but unfortunately the swans and the water are noisy. Vassil 27 May 2007
Oppose - Good colours and nice composition. But the photo is overexposed (part of the sky is blown) and the geometric distortion is annoying. You could try to correct both flaws with an editing application - Alvesgaspar15:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While there are good elements, there are also bad ones (overexposure, people), and there are no aspects which are outstanding enough for a FP. -- Ram-Man01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InfoPalais Bourbon (seat of the National Assembly) in Paris at dusk. In the foreground is the river Seine crossed by the Pont de la Concorde. In the background on the right hand side the cupola of the Dôme des Invalides can be seen.
Info Photographer: Webster (20 November 2002 evening time). Uploaded on february 6, 2005 at 01:14 by Webster.
Comment although the image may look a little grainy at its full resolution (due to minor noise caused by low light conditions), it is not when viewed at 1.8 megapixels (so this fits with the conditions of quality, editing is then not necessary as we can just reducing a little its resolution to one that was judged sufficient for many featured pictures here). The perspective is good and does not produce undesirable optical effects on the size or orientation of elements. The composition features only important elements(distracting elements were avoided by not showing the street with cars). The colors are well balanced and rendered, including the many colorful reflexions on the River Seine. The subject itself is useful to locate the Palais within Paris, and give information about relative distances, and anyway this is a nice place to see (it is also featured as a good illustration for the articles on Wiipedia, and Palais Bourbon also has its own gallery page in Commons. Verdy p07:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, at 2MP viewing, this image is blotchy and lacks definition, probably due to noise reduction (although the "why" doesn't matter too much). -- Ram-Man01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did NOT remove any definition, because noise reduction did not remove any contracting point (the noise reduction filter was adaptative, with a very low threshold, manually adjusted to avoid loss of details (made with The GIMP from the original, look at the history) ; this just allows the image to scale better at different sizes while preserving its contrast; no change was done to the color or light balance). The noise in the night sky is them completely removed, but no details are lost. The image is still best viewed with a reduction of size (the extra resolution provides details). It looks good at about 1.5 megapixels, instead of the original size. I think that the image waould have been qualified if I have reduced its size (using preferably a bicubic algorithm), despite this would have removed details... Unfortunately, Ican't contact the author of this cliché; using a longer exposition time would produce less details on water, and also because of waves at the surface of the Seine; the olysolution would be to use a special "night" mode in the camera, with long exposure at low sentitivity, terminated by a short exposure at high sensitivity to get contrasted on waves; or a serie of at least 4 fast clichés). Verdy p19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful image, but too many parts of it are out of focus, especially extremities of legs and antennas. Moreover, the picture does not comply to the 2 Mpixels limit. — Xavier, 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The four votes above should probably apply to this image as well, since the only difference is the resolution. -- Ram-Man13:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the higher resolution image.Oppose as per project scope ("The quality of files should be as high as possible"). We're this image not downsampled, the resolution would be ok, since the content would be a mitigating factor: more horizontal width wouldn't make any difference to the ant. I'll change to support if this image is uploaded at a higher resolution. -- Ram-Man04:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to support the higher resolution image. As for the brighter hot spots, is that because the downsampling eliminated them or was there some other processing? -- Ram-Man14:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or to erase oppose votes. Technically speaking the one oppose vote for image #1 should apply here, but clearly the other oppose vote does not apply here, so separating the image does make sense and sorting out the votes is always a problem since the rules state that this is a straight vote. If consensus was determined we might not have that problem. -- Ram-Man12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got careless and didn't notice the file size, which goes to show that the image isn't that bad. I usually evaluate these vertical images at full frame on my monitor, but I didn't rotate it this time. Is there a reason that the file size is low? Is a higher resolution image available with more detail? -- Ram-Man14:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the diagonal through the picture by the three main elements (hands, face, circle on the wall), but i dont like that the left border of the picture is near the eyes of the statue. And a size of 227KB is far too small. --Simonizer14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this aspect ratio, it needs to be at a minimum of 1160x1740 with a file size in the ballpark of 450k - 600k (or more). Of course, the higher the resolution the better, as this increases detail and allows for more post-processing and other uses. -- Ram-Man14:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive roof, impressive picture. I like the execution of structures in the picture and that the centre of the rotunda is a little offcentered. That makes it more dynamic in my opinion --Simonizer13:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! No doubt that symmetry is a very important element of beauty. Pity that the picture is a little noisy. Alvesgaspar14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to oppose here, as I do like the picture a lot. But the almost-but-not-quite symmetry is disturbing. An exactly symmetrical version would be preferred: this one looks as if the photographer tried but failed to achieve that. --MichaelMaggs09:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put a straight edge up to the screen and realized that this can't be perfectly symmetrical because the construction isn't perfectly symmetrical. Look at how the metal bars inside the center do not line up precisely, especially with that of the center star. Some of it is how the picture was taken, but some is inherent in the subject. It looks to me like some asymmetry was part of the design. -- Ram-Man15:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. The shallow depth of field (f/2.8) is mitigated by the need for a fast shutter speed (1/350) to capture the live, moving subject. -- Ram-Man13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the resolution and lighting and composition are great, but it seems to be not very sharp, although the DOF seems to put the spider in the centre of the focus range. Maybe it's a compression problem, maybe it's camera movement. Processing with the 'unsharp mask' filter in Gimp helps quite a bit. I won't vote against it as perhaps I'm being too picky. --Tony Wills22:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to hold the camera arms outstretched to try to get as close as possible to the spider. As a result, there was some amount of camera shake, but it's not terrible. This was also before I had a macro lens, so I couldn't get the magnification that I wanted. Of course cropping is never as good as downsampling for the same end resolution. I'll see if I can perform some more processing to clean it up. -- Ram-Man22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - In the meantime, the Sun came out from behind the clouds... It is much better now and I like the composition, but the subject is a little blurry. - Alvesgaspar16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that it is unlikely that you'd change your vote, but I did upload a downsampled, 2MP, image anyway to show the effective resolution that this image actually has. I agree that it's right on the border of acceptable sharpness at 2MP, but when evaluated against the guidelines, I thought there was at least a chance of success. -- Ram-Man12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, I'ld put it in my private collection any time (it is there as n° 55,853 actually). so I do like it, but for FP it needs that extra bit of quality (here sharpness). -- Lycaon13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. As I said, I didn't expect you to change your vote, but maybe someone else will care to vote based on the effective resolution showed by the downsampled example image. -- Ram-Man13:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose-- The clouds do not appear to match the sky. My suspension of disbelief is gone. {71.208.156.72 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC).} Please login to vote. --Digon317:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Slight overexposure (the centers of the flowers are blowing out) and ~40% of the luminance range is unused. Is this a picture about the whole plant in its natural environment? If it is, the DoF is too shallow, the foreground blur distracting, and the typical clusters of leaves hidden. This picture does a better job of showing the whole plant. If this is about the flower, I've taken a closer, more detailed version here that didn't even make QI. Now, for artistic impression, this is a good image. The shallow DoF that hurts its value helps with its impression. -- Ram-Man12:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was this image artificially blurred? At f/8 and at this distance, the DoF seems too shallow, but maybe it's just me. -- Ram-Man12:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image wasn't artificial blurred. The flowers were very close to the close focus distance. In addition the optical axis is nearly parallel to the ground. The shot was taken through the grass of a meagre meadow. --LC-de13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that makes sense to me. I suppose the grass is just so close to the camera that it made it look shallower than what it really was. -- Ram-Man14:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but its too dark and I would prefer different lighting (though probably won't succeed because it is not a "flower" photo). As for being non-descriptive, it is a lot more descriptive than most other photos (it even has links). --Digon314:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "it is not a flower photo". It is a flower. And it is descriptive and shows sharper details than most flower featured pictures. It also has perfect DoF control. Two people who think it is boring is not the end of the world, but I can see about changing the brightness of the image. -- Ram-Man14:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant other people might vote against because it does't look like a flower (I was making an observation based on your other nominations). It is very descriptive and interesting photo of a flower, I was addressing the two people above.
Yes a dead flower, but one in which being dead actually has significance. These plants are grown partially because the flowers last into spring, thus providing garden variety during the winter months. -- Ram-Man22:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info A very nice idea, and well done. My only concern about promoting to FP status would be that the part in focus, to which the eye is drawn, is right on the far side of this image, and the central blurred section is too large and prominent. You have to look quite hard at the image to see what the true focus is. Maybe another shot with the ends of the keys less off to one side? --MichaelMaggs11:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is one of those shots that just looks like it should be great, but something just bothers me. My eyes are drawn to the blurry section. The DoF is either too shallow or the composition wrong. The shot has potential and trying it again until it is perfect is a good idea. -- Ram-Man01:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It is better than the one below in terms of lighting but the compositiom looks a bit random to me and the quality doesn't look great at full resolution. A pity that many of the foreground flowers are begining to wither. - Alvesgaspar22:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is better than the one below, but the composition and "wow factor" are not as good, IMO, and that's very important for a FP. The subject (i.e. withering flowers) makes it a little weak, but that's a more minor problem. Technical quality is fine at 2MP. -- Ram-Man00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like a scan from film and the quality isn't good enough. The subject matter is very nice, but not enough to compensate, IMO. -- Ram-Man02:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Wendy Rathey - uploaded by A-giâu - nominated by 82.141.127.224 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Support --82.141.127.224 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The "leafy dragon" doesn't stand out as much as it should. --wj32 talk | contribs 10:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral 
Comment At the moment the dimension of the image is: 3000 x 2250, 5914 KB--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 08:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Husky (talk to me) 00:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
Info: created and uploaded by André Karwath aka Aka, nominated by --norro 20:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Question What does it look like if you crop a little less? Ben Aveling 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
_-_Aquarium_Finisterrae.jpg)
#2
.
Comment No QI, I'am afraid, because not uploaded by copyright holder. --norro 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
.JPG)
(de)
_from_Galileo_and_Voyager_missions.jpg)
_from_Galileo_and_Voyager_missions.jpg)
#2
#3
Strong supportJina Lee 05:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
_missile_test.jpg)
_%E2%80%93_idt-003.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
--> (Opinión) 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lovely mouse! :-) Vmenkov 22:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Charlessauer 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Picture #2 
Picture #1: 
Picture #2: 
Picture #2: 
.jpg)
I re-stitched and edited it from scratch. In this version the stitching is completely flawless and I have made several other improvments, on the original image large parts of the males face were blue blown and there was some fringing on the face of the male - I have rectified both of those things along with it being a neater and cleaner image than the old one regarding the unfeathered lines of filtering running across the birds (I don't think anyone noticed that last time), the BG is better and the whole image is crisper (although I haven't sharpened it) and slightly warmer.
*
#2
Episyrphus balteatus male is not a proper id? Or do you mean the jeans? ;) --norro 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a female and it is surely not an Episyrphus ;D -- Lycaon 00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend to change only the image description for now and change the file name after this vote. You can do this by uploading a copy of this image with the proper filename and tagging this image here with template 
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_missile_test.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FImage%3ATobey_Maguire_and_Jennifer_Meyer_by_David_Shankbone.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=5496568&oldid=5494816){kind=link}
_grey.jpg){kind=link}
_missile_test.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_missile_test.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_missile_test.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_%E2%80%93_idt-003.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[2]](http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g6/redstart/sfw-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.tvwc.org/Assets/OW_SuperbFairyWrenThumbnail.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_03.jpg)
#2
.jpg){kind=link}
* 
*
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FImage%3AGiant_petrel.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=5837782&oldid=5836274){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FImage%3ADrop_Impact1.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=5872782&oldid=5872545){kind=link}
